I agree with you whole heartedly. While my children have benefited from therapy, medication and support, and are part of that aspie crowd who would not change into an NT. As their parent I would give any or all of me for a miracle pill. Because it is not about them being ASD. It is about how hard it is and how much easier it could be.

I also think those in the ASAN movement are smart enough to understand the way of the world and what the realities of their personhood is. They are able to come to grips with their autism much in the same way my children have and alot of parents of autistic children have as well.

I do recent though the "cure" crowd and the vaccine obsession of those in the media. While they toil away with this nonsense there could be many discoveries missed and answers overlooked while they go on their quest for the golden goose.

I am glad that Autism Science Foundation has found a footing and a following. More of us have to speak up and let the monied powers in Washington understand that they need to back the right horse so to speak.

". . . and how quickly they forget that one of the main reason's they can sit at their computers and rant is b/c someone did the therapy and pushed them along as a child. Somebody cared to try and give them a decent quality of life"

Please be careful with assumptions like these. Some of the earliest advocates of the "ND" camp have written about how this is definitely not true of them. Most of us simply got higher functioning as we got older, and I am probably not the only one who benefitted from being ignored and being left to figure it out for myself. (At least it was preferable to the alternatives available at the time.)

What we need for a higher quality of life is to be included *as we are* instead of waiting for a cure to make our differences go away. Supports, yes. Everyone needs those. Treatments, not so sure. Being included is the best treatment of all.

@ Elise -

"the vaccine obsession of those in the media" What vaccine obsession?  For the most part the media ignores this.  

"While they toil away with this nonsense there could be many discoveries missed and answers overlooked while they go on their quest for the golden goose."  There is and has been so much research going on in other areas, and very little on vaccines.  More research on vaccation causation could bring about significant breakthroughs on treatment and prevention.  Not prevention of the gloriously high functioning people with autism who are able to blog, but prevention of those with severe impairments -- whether unable to talk and learn, suffering from GI problems, and/or unable to make friends...

"More of us have to speak up and let the monied powers in Washington understand that they need to back the right horse so to speak."  Actually, ASF is the wrong horse.  And if we don't do something about the vaccine problems this country will be struggling to deal with another generation with a large percentage of adults who cannot live independently -- in addition to the generation who are about to reach adulthood.

"Not prevention of the gloriously high functioning people with autism who are able to blog, but prevention of those with severe impairments -- whether unable to talk and learn, suffering from GI problems, and/or unable to make friends..."

Twyla, would you please stop making assumptions about people you don't know? It's insulting. Autistic adults argue about the term "high functioning" all the time. Some of think it is a useless term because it ignores how uneven our abilities are. You can't assume because people can blog that they can make friends in real life, hold down a job, talk effectively, or even manage basic self care.

Why don't you try actually reading some of those blogs?

Give me a break, Anemone!  I'm not making assumptions about anyone!  I'm simply refering to those individual bloggers who say, "Don't change me, don't 'cure' me, don't treat me -- I'm fine the way I am.  Don't treat your child, accept your child the way he or she is."  There are some bloggers who are offended by the suggestion that we could prevent autism by limiting toxic exposures and too many vaccines.  My point is, if you are happy as you are, fine, but there are some people with autism who are severely affected and could benefit from a better understanding of biomedical causes and treatments.  I'm not making assumptions about anybody.  People are individuals.  Of course some people who blog have difficulties. 

With all due respect, I just finished reading the article you cite  above. I found it just more of the same rehash of the "vaccine" is the cause crowd. No new evidence or new proof just a complaint that not enough research has been done on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children even though theer have been a myriad of studies. The problem is that the vaccine is to blame group just doesn't like the outcome of the studies.

I give you that you are concerned about numerous factors that could lead to ASD, but I put no more stock in the scientists who have money interest in the vaccine is the cause group, where they get their funding, then those who are funded by the pharmaceutical companies.

I know for a fact that my children exhibited autistic attributes before their vaccinations and they did not regress exponentially after. But with real science, therapy, medication and support they have progressed into adolescents bent on creating a future for themselves.

There is no panacea, there is no miracle cure, and sometimes as much as we do not want to admit it, there is no real reason either other than mother nature/God/evolution, however you refer to a high consciencousness, is simply a jerk who screws with the human race.

It also should be noted that "genetic" refers to not only that which is inherited from one's parents genetically, but to de novo (spontaneous) mutations, as in the work of geneticist Michael Wigler:

http://www.blisstree.com/autismvox/a-unified-theory-of-autism/

Autism is (as it is) genetic is a much more complicated and nuanced statement than it might appear; it's not as simple as saying that this is a matter of genetics "vs." the environment.

You see, the original arguement was that the autism epidemic was vaccine induced. Not 'occasionally causes autism' or 'might cause autism in a tiny minority of people who are at risk of developing autism through naturally acquired autism anyway', but 'vaccines are responsible for the rise in autism'. These are two completely different arguements, and Harold clearly needs to update his knowledge in order to prevent embarrasing himself by conflating them further.

In order to study the vulnerable subsets, we first have to identify A) that they exist and B) who they are. So far, none of the studies done have been able to find hide nor hair of them.

This indicates that either A) the subgroups actually don't exist, or B) that they exist in far too small a number to make any real impact on autism incidence.

Thus the arguement "vaccines = autism epidemic" is totally dead in the water until further evidence comes along. Stating this is NOT equivilant to stating that autism can never be caused by vaccine, as Harold incorrectly and feebly attempts to allude.

Dr Healy has done good work in her own field, but was a virtual unknown to the vaccine-skeptic crowd just a few years ago. It's time to recognise that - unlike Dr Offitt - her status as an authourity on this matter is derived almost entirely from her promotion as an authourity by the vaccine-skeptic crowd.

Her personal opinion, along with that of Gerbeding (formally the "wicked witch of the west" to the vaccine-skeptic crowd") lends absolutely no credence to the claims of the vaccine skeptic crowd and it's time to stop claiming that they do.

We want facts around these parts, not personal opinions. That is, after all, the scientific method people like Harold clamour for.

Elise said, "I put no more stock in the scientists who have money interest in the vaccine is the cause group, where they get their funding, then those who are funded by the pharmaceutical companies."  There are a heck of a lot more financial interests lined up to suppress the vaccine-autism link than to investigate it. 

Dedj C said, "the original arguement was that the autism epidemic was vaccine induced. Not 'occasionally causes autism' or 'might cause autism in a tiny minority of people."  The fact is, even if vaccines caused all autism that would only be about 1 in 100 people.  That is a minority.  And, being responsible for an epidemic means causing most of the increase, but not necessarily all autism.  Nobody I know who believes in the autism-vaccine link believes that vaccines cause all autism.  To argue that some autism is not caused by vaccines is just a distraction.  Of course some autism is not caused by vaccines.

I never heard of Dr. Paul Offit until a few years ago.  How tf does whether I have heard of someone deciede whether they are worth paying attention to? 

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make in your reply. At no point did I say that it is of importance that some autism is not caused by vaccines. I was responding to Harolds conflation of the two seperate "vaccines caused the autism epidemic" and "vaccines can cause some autism" arguements.

Please stick to the point.

"I never heard of Dr. Paul Offit until a few years ago. "

You clearly misunderstood the point.

Dr Offit was a well established authourity in the relevant fields long before any of us here got into the subject. Whether you personally knew of him is irrelevant and was not the point that was being made. Dr Healy was known, but in her own field, with no known directly relevant qualifications or experience. Suddenly - with no extra training, qualifications or experience - she is being taken as a greater authourity than the people that she disagrees with, which includes people with equal or greater, current and relevant experience and credentials.

To promote her view as an authourity without also promoting their view as authourities is nothing short of selective omission.

Dr. Offit is a well established authority in the field of vaccine development.  He does not have expertise in the fields of autism, neurology, gastroenterology, or genetics, yet he wrote a book bashing autism therapies which many have found effective and about which he is not even qualified to have an opinion.

His experience developing vaccines gives him a vested interest in defending vaccines, but does not make him qualified to determine whether vaccines may cause autism.

You must be talking about a different Dr Offit.

The main "vaccines = autism" arguement is that vaccines are provoking a immunologic reaction in children, which results in autism. Some parents even go so far as to claim that they can "see the autism" take effect on the clinic table.

This is not a long shot out of the field of standing for a paediatrician with a background in vaccines and immunology.

If he was the only person Dr Healy was disgreeing with, you just might possibly have a point. He is certainly not. Again, Healy is less relevantly qualified than the teams of people that have looked at this.

Repeating her qualifications in cardiology and posistions last held years ago does nothing to answer that challenge that you and others are selectively quoting her.

"Just anti desparately doing 'anything' because some huxster tells me it will make my kid normal kind of treatment."

When a parent works his/her butt off to find, research, evaluate and implement treatments that help a child with autism, and the parent writes about that on the internet, how can bloggers think they know enough about this parent and child and their doctor to say that the parent is desperately doing anything based on advice from a huxster?

If some people with autism are happy as they are, functioning o.k., only in need of advocacy for some services or better acceptance and understanding from society, great.  But autism is a SPECTRUM.  Not all people with autism are the same!  What meets your needs may not be what meets someone else's needs!

Differences do not need to be divisive.  Advocate for what you need!  But don't demand that everyone be the same as you!

The problem becomes that if the "hukster " theory becomes the overarching consensus then a viable treatment will not be sought. Remember the "refrigertor mother" theory. That caused almost 4 decades of trauma.

It is the search for the real cause/treatment/therapy/medication that can solve this issue. It is not really divisive to demand that the limited funds available be spent on truely viable cogent scientific research.

Most parents do not have unlimited funds to try everything to help their child. The autism community needs real answers and sometimes the answer is to deal with the reality of your child's disabilty and do for them the best that can be without limiting their quality of life.

I base my children's supports and therapies on real proven methods, not anecdotal wishful thinking. I take them to real medical professionals who specialize in neurology, endocrin, and GI issues. I give them the tests they need to decifer the issues. I do not put them on some esoteric food program because some person with a questionable medical background is trying to push his supplements, food program or unverified tests. Nor do I listen to the feel good,new age speak that eminates from Hollywwod. I deal with reality, because my children have no choice. It smacks them in the face everyday.

Joe wrote: "But I have also heard their members fully support things like speech therapy, as well as medical treatment for medical conditions (including GI conditions)"

Not just 'fully support' but also research, advocate for, supply, and deliver. I have degree level study in a HPC registered form of therapy, professional experience of applying the social model in clinical settings, and clinical and care support experience in autism services across two counties, as well as numerous charity involvement. Yet, I'm considered a novice and fringe member of the ND movement.

A anti-ND blogger slated two pro-ND bloggers on here, it had to be pointed out that those two bloggers were a internationally published lecturer on autism who advocates on the national stage for provision of assisted communication to people with autism, and a person who occupies a high level post in a national autism charity who also researches use of video in the education of people with autism.

Both these people have significantly more in-depth and relevant experience of autism and autism services than many of the most prominent anti-ND bloggers combined. Both these people were easily found through google.

Surprisingly that anti-ND blogger failed to reply.

Basically, anyone that thinks "pro-ND = anti-treatment" really does need to go away and not come back until they've done their homework properly.

Elise, your comments are so condescending.  Parents who use biomedical treatments also base their decisions on science, tests, consultation with medical professionals, and "reality".  And then we observe our children carefully to figure out what is helping and what isn't.  We put our kids on diets because we are listening to other parents' and practitioners' experiences, and then we decide for ourselves whether the diet is helping.

Nobody on this blog is telling you what you should or shouldn't do with and for your children.  I don't know why you are criticizing what others are doing with and for their children.

I'm not influenced by Hollywood celebrities but by conferences I attend, books I read, and parents I know.  But those hard working celebrities are bringing publicity to treatments that can help.  It's a shame that my son had ten years of diarrhea -- all the while me thinking it's genetic and nothing I could do -- before I learned about GFCF diet and digestive enzymes and probiotics.  And I did not learn about these from mainstream doctors but from parents.

Dedj said, "Basically, anyone that thinks 'pro-ND = anti-treatment' really does need to go away and not come back until they've done their homework properly."  Another snide divisive comment.  You could have just said that ND's are not against treatment.  I have no opinion about what most ND's think, but as far as those who blog there seem to be quite a few who are anti-biomedical treatments.

I am sorry but  I an mot the one being condescending or quite frankly hostile. You are. While this topic may elicit strong emotions in you because I am assuming you have a very affected child, this discussion is supposed to be a broad discssion of ideas.

Bio-meds have not been proven to be effective to stop autism. Certain aspects of the diets help certain underlying issues, I use the gluten free diet for example. However, since I have been dealing as a parent with two children on the spectrum for almost 15 years now, noone that I know has been successful with any bio-med beyond taking care of a regular medical issue. I also holdout that if you have an underlying medical issue you need to see a neurologist, endocrinologist, and GI specialist. These doctors will provide the appropriate tests for your children and then put them on a necessary course of healing. To put a child on an unecessary regime could be further detrimental to their health by depriving them of much needed vitamins and growth development.

Furthermore, citing as many doctors as you can who support bio-meds does not make it so. I reiterate my earlier point about the "refrigerator mother" concept in autism or any earlier belief that medical professionals have had over the centuries. It is not whether you have heard about a doctor or not that makes them an expert in a field. Whether you have heard about themor not  has more to dowith their own powers of self-promotion. It is rather their method of research and how they use thier data. All data can be manipulated to meet your point in a debate. It is the underlying information that is truely telling.

Lastly, bio-meds are all over the news. DId you hear of Jenny McCarthy and Oprah. The moment that these two started discussig their "cure" for autism then that has been the talk of all media. Remember Oprah is more powerful than the leaders of most nations in this world, and people take as gospel what she says. Since you like to cite, read the Newsweek article about her. It is very interesting and explains just what kind of empire she has created (this is not to dis Oprah. I think she is the quintessential AMerican dream. However, when you wield that much power a person should be more circumspect, and not so spiritually flakey). If you don't think that they have any effect I would recommend that you read what people write on several autism chat boards. I did and that is what caused my concern. These parents because of Oprah and Jenny McCarthy think they have a way out for their children and are pinning untold hope and money on these programs. This phenomenon is world wide. It is dangerous because when you run out of money there is nothing left to give to the methods that have been proven to help.

Lastly, I reiterate what  I have said earlier, that there is limited funds for research and that respected science and scientific method is what is needed in order to find  the cause and hopefully one day provide a "cure" for autism (Despite the desires of some ND groups).

By the way,as far as my two boys, I have taken the oldest from PDD-NOS(complete with stimming, echolalia, hyperlexia and severe social disfunction) at 5, he was rediagnosed as aspergers before middle school and just finished his first year of college, and received his first pay check yesterday. I helped him accomplish this without bio-meds, just traditonal medication,therapy and support and quite frankly just a healthy diet overall. The youngest is more traditional aspergers, luckily we caught his  disability earlier, since we knew what to look for. He is also on his way to college. Both exhibited autistic traits before their vaccinations and did not exponently get worse after.

I do hope that you have found something that helps your child. That I believe is what we are all looking for.

"Another snide divisive comment.  You could have just said that ND's are not against treatment."

Why? That would not have been a fully accurate statement. There are enough high profile pro-ND bloggers, academics, researchers, therapists and service providers that finding pro-treatment pro-nd people is a relative cinch.

Like it or not, the "ND = anti-treatment" arguement is so easily disprovable that the only way to hold it is to be ignorant, incompetant, biased or a combination of all three.

Even one of the main authours of this blog is considered ND yet has blogged multiple times about her sons treatment.

There is no excuse to believe that "ND = anti-treatment". Deal with it.

Elise - I am not hostile.  I have not expressed hostility nor condescension.  I am simply expressing my opinions.

Oprah is exceptional in giving Jenny McCarthy a voice.  Most news outlets hardly touch the vaccine-autism topic except to publish stories saying that it's dangerous not to vaccinate.

According to Irva Hertz-Picciotto,  Ph.D., M.P.H. (who is "a professor of environmental and occupational health and epidemiology and an internationally respected autism researcher" at UC Davis): “Right now, about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones. We need to even out the funding”. See http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/newsdetail.html?key=1861&svr=http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu&table=published

Of course I have no idea what caused your sons' autism, but you can't rule out vaccines playing a role based on early symptoms, because vaccines begin either at birth or by age 2 months - before signs of autism are evident.

Congratulations on how well your sons are doing, and on all that you have done for them.

Dedj C, there you go again "Like it or not, the 'ND = anti-treatment' arguement is so easily disprovable that the only way to hold it is to be ignorant, incompetant, biased or a combination of all three."  I don't know who you are trying to insult, but I have not noticed anyone saying that all NDs are against treatment.  If an individual blogger who happens to be ND argues against considering biomedical treatments, I may argue with them; that does not mean that I am saying all NDs are against these treatments.

If it doesn't apply to you then you are free to butt out.

"but I have not noticed anyone saying that all NDs are against treatment."

If you are ignorant of the claim then that's fine, it's not your fault. But you do need to be aware that it gets made, and has been heavily implied by at least one person in this thread, and elsewhere by at least one of the main participants here.

I don't sit here and type things for kicks you know. Please have the decency to attribute at least some knowledge and intelligence to me, as I do to you. It'll stop you misreading my posts.

Did plenty of biomed and one would hope that education (I am a teacher........) would help to assist an individual in reaching her or his full potential!----very glad that we all are who we are.

There's been significant changes in the criteria for autism over the past 50 years; you can see how the DSM criteria have evolved here:

http://unstrange.com/dsm1.html

Also, with better understanding of autism, professionals (and parents and teachers and others) have been better able to identify it in children.  In a previous generation, my son---considered "classically autistic" now---would probably not have had an autism diagnosis.

"Better diagnosis" cannot account for the increase.  See http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/newsdetail.html?key=1861&svr=http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu&table=published

We don't have 1 in 150 adults out there with the level of disability found in children today.  These adults could not have just disappeared.  They would show up somewhere, such as in Californias' regional center system.

Experiences of professionals such as psychologists and teachers and doctors who have worked in their fields for many years confirm that today's rate of autism (whether called autism or any other name) did not exist 25 years ago.

Kanner stated that autism was extremely rare back in the 1930s.  Although he was nationally known and received patients from all over the country and the world, he found very few people with autism.

Kanner's statement that autism was "rare" needs to be understood in the historical and cultural context of the 1930s when much less was known (by him, too) about autism and psychiatric and neurological disabilities.

"The studies you refer to have been criticized by Dr. Healy, whose CV is available on Wikipedia, "

And? Few people on either side knew who she was until she started making vaccine-skeptic noises. Suddenly - with no extra experience, qualifications or training - she's taken as an authourity, above and beyond people with significantly more relevant experience and qualifications.

"as not addressing vulnerable population subsets."

They have to find them first. We have the assertion from a previously irrelevant authourity that the scientists basically 'haven't been looking hard enough' yet no sign of what 'looking hard enough' would even look like. We basically have a situation where teams of relevantly experienced and qualified people are saying "We looked and found nothing" yet somehow we're supposed to dismiss what they say for the unvalidated personal opinion of the vaccine-skeptics crush-of-the-month?

Why? How does this ridiculous situation even make sense to you?

"And it is documented fact that the studies needed to explore the issues properly have not been done."

No it is not, it is the personal opinion of Dr Healy.

"They have been discouraged.  Those are facts not specualtion."

The original paper Healy refers to clearly lays out the reasons for not continuing this vein of research - they were finding nothing, and risked public scares.

You are taking the personal opinion of one person as being more valid than the collective opinions of people who have equivalent, if not greater. relevant authority and expertise.

To present her opinion without also presenting theirs is tantamount to lying by omission.

Harold,

I am sorry to say that I do not use Wikipedia as a reference for anything. My high school and college age children are strictly forbidden by their schools to use Wiki because of its unreliability. While I don't for one minute doubt your sincerity, or your zealous belief or consider you a "bad" person by any means,, you are a parent like any of us looking for answers in order to help your child  my original premise still holds, that we need to direct our limited funding into research that would do the most good, and the abundance of "hukster" theories is not helping point everyone in the direction where we should be looking.

Peace to you and your lovely child.

You don’t like Wikipedia?  O.K., here’s part of Dr. Healy’s bio from a National Institute of health web site at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_145.html

Cardiologist Bernadine Healy is a physician, educator, and health administrator who was the first woman to head the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Known for her outspoken, innovative policymaking, Dr. Healy has been particularly effective in addressing medical policy and research pertaining to women…

Healy graduated first in her class at Hunter, went on to Vassar where she graduated summa cum laude, earned her M.D. at Harvard Medical School, and completed her training in internal medicine and cardiology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

After completing her internship and residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Dr. Healy spent two years at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health before returning to Hopkins in 1976, where she became a professor of medicine. She earned a reputation as a skilled cardiovascular researcher specializing in the pathology of heart attacks. She also became the school's first woman to serve as assistant dean for postdoctoral programs and faculty development.

In 1984 President Ronald Reagan appointed Healy deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Policy. In 1985 she was appointed chairman of the Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation where she directed the research programs of nine departments. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush appointed her director of the National Institutes of Health. She later served as dean of Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health and professor of medicine from 1995 to 1999…

While she was at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Healy undertook a number of initiatives. She established an award program to keep talented scientists working within the grant system during funding lapses, oversaw the development of a major intramural genetics laboratory and an Institute for Nursing Research, and launched the $625 million Women's Health Initiative (a long-term health study involving 150,000 women). In the interest of better understanding the different ways disease and treatment affect men and women, she also established a policy whereby the National Institutes of Health would fund only those clinical trials that included both men and women when the condition being studied affected both genders.

As president of the American Heart Association from 1998 to 1999, she initiated pioneering research into women's heart disease and demonstrated that medical progress depends on the public and medical community's perception that there is a problem to be solved. Healy set out to convince both the lay and medical sectors that heart disease is also a woman's disease, "not a man's disease in disguise."...

In addition to her various administrative positions, Dr. Healy has continued to treat patients during much of her career. Her research has led to deeper understanding of the pathology and treatment of heart attacks, especially in women. An author as well as a policymaker and manager, Dr. Healy has written or co-authored more than 220 peer-reviewed manuscripts on cardiovascular research and health and science policy.

Am not wanting to do what I predicted would happen in my own post and provide all kinds of links and info to counter what anyone says; Dr. Healy has certainly been often cited among those who are proponents of the notion that vaccines and autism could have some link, though there is no link.

Whether or not there is link between autism and vaccinations is still yet to be conclusively proven.  In regard to any other medical situation, a parent's observations are legitimate.  But, the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of parents who are convinced that there IS a link between vaccines and autism somehow do not have legitimate observations.  

See the video where the head of the CDC admits vaccines cause autism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg

Yes, many are convinced --"convinced"--that there "is" a link.

Joe says "And what I see is a 'fringe' medical establishment that claims to be 'fighting for kids', when all I see is a bunch of practitioners who fail to take any real science into account..."  Have you ever seen Dr. Jerry Kartzinel or Dr. Elizabeth Mumper speak?  Have you read Dr. Bryan Jepson's book "Changing the Course of Autism"?  You don't appear to know much about these practitioners whom you consider to be 'fringe'.  These are extremely thoughtful, intelligent, principled people who are working extremely hard to help people with autism.

I can't speak for every DAN! doctor; as with any specialty some are better than others.  But overall the organization is tremendous and the work they are doing is groundbreaking and scientific.

And "desperate parents" is another stereotype.  The parents I know who believe in vaccine causation and in the value biomedical treatments are intelligent, thoughtful, positive thinking people who love their children and make careful choices.  Many are highly educated as well.

And the numerous comments being left on this post reveals the extent of energy directed to this topic, in contrast to that given to other topics.  

Joe- your description does not match my experience.  Yes, I did research on the internet and sought other parents who were experiencing improvements via biomedical interventions.  I *did not* do any research before I vaccinated, and had I, I would have done it much differently if at all.  Poo-poo it if you would like - but I also did listen to my intuition, which I worked hard to ignore at the administration of those fateful 12 month shots.

We started biomedical interventions... and when we saw huge immediate improvements we knew they were working and we continued.  We aren't idiots throwing our money willy nilly grasping desperately for straws. When an intervention did not help or when it caused problems, we stopped it.  Our son has been oddly intuitive in helping us know which of his supplements and medications were causing him problems.  ( twice he has picked out of his pile of pills a particular pill with the explanation, "I don't want to take this one any more" - and both times he was spot on - excluding once a prescription drug and once TMG that we had raised the dose on too high. )  He has lost his dx though we are still catching up on social skills a bit.  No doubt you will argue with me and attempt to discredit me.  I will find comfort in the words of my son's chagrined pediatrician who said, "you can't argue with results"

Kristina - We have been diligently pursuing biomedical interventions for a little under four years.  We saw little improvement from speech and occupational therapies prior to biomedical interventions, and huge gains after implementing biomedical interventions.  In our case, biomedical was the best place to focus our energies.  As our son has become physically healthier through biomedical interventions, his other issues have become increasingly moot.  It makes sense to us to concentrate our efforts on biomed.

Harold, I take time out from my day to go trough your arguements and provide counterpoints. Common decency would entail that you at least attempt to do the same.

If you have no answers then just say so, there is no need to try to blame me for your lack of answers.

You are on record as having attacked the knowledge base, motivation and skill level of several pro-ND bloggers on this website, for no other reason than that they have disagreed with you and called you out exactly as they have seen it.

I thank you for giving permission to dismiss your arguements, it saves having to waste time reading them.

Sorry, I meant to say "several highly experienced, qualified and highly level pro-ND bloggers"

I certainly see genes as playing a role in autism.  For example, studies have shown that children with autism are more likely to have a family history of auto-immune disorders.  Immune deficiency and mitochondrial disorders and low glutathione have all been associated with autism.  The MET gene variant does not necessarily cause autism, as many people with this variant do not have autism, but it may increase the chance of autism.  MET has an impact on digestion and immunity.  All of the conditions mentioned in this paragraph may have genetic roots, and may cause increased vulnerability to vaccine injury.

Hannah Poling shares a genetic tendency toward mitochondrial disorder with her parents, but she did not show signs of mental or developmental impairment until after receiving 9 vaccines in one day.  Her parents, who gave her the genes but were not vaccinated according to today's schedule, are able to have careers, take care of daily life activities, speak in full sentences etc.

Also, toxins can cause genetic aberations.  So, the gene-environment interation is a two-way street.

I am certainly not anti-ND.  I am all for advocacy on behalf of neurodiversity and acceptance of differences and for people with autism finding a place in the worlda and the opportunity to express talents, not just suffering misunderstanding and rejection.

Autism is a spectrum, and people with autism have a variety of needs and abilities.  What bothers me is when some ND bloggers do not seem to acknowledge that.  Some kids need and benefit from biomedical treatments.  That should be respected.  That certainly does not make me anti-ND.  And I am not labeling all NDs; I am simply responding to the stated opinions of some individual bloggers.

I have no idea whether your comment was aimed at me, but I do see lots of gray areas!

Kristina, although I disagree with you often, I want to thank you for posting my comments, and for your calm polite responses.

It's very good to know I'm not the only one seeing such things!

Joe & Elise -

People I know using biomedical treatments for autism don't use the word "cure".  In my experience the word "cure" is primarily used by those who mock biomedical treatments for autism.

Which is well, "cure" being a misplaced notion in regard to autism. [stream of refutations bound to follow this comment]

I really thought they we were done with blaming the parents/mother crap. The pseudo-science that if there is no defineable answer it has to be the parents fault is beyond ignorant, lazy and shows a pathelogical sense of self-importance by those who have no answers and cannot blame their own inadequacies for thier own failure. They even used to say that about anorexia whereby it was caused by the parents behavior as well, they have now proven its genetic, too.

"...Often I've wondered if the energy and emotion that gets put into the "vaccine issue" is displaced from worries and anxiety about the real issues at hand: The lack of supports and services, the paucity of schools, the painful attitudes and misperceptions about individuals on the spectrum---I could go on and on. If one-tenth of that "antivax/pro-vaccine safety" energy were directed to advocating for services and supports for individuals on the spectrum; for training more teachers and therapists; for creating more classrooms and schools and group homes and supported living environments for individuals on the spectrum.......

Kind of hard to imagine?..."

Sometimes I gauge these things by the length of the threads on posts which is some kind of metric of interest on an issue. Given that this is one of the longest ones, by a multiplier of 4 at least, and that is fairly characteristic of the vaccine/not vaccine topic...well, I might have some speculations.

As far as Dr. London's resignation - whether I agree with his reasons or not for the resignation or taking on the new organization, it really makes no matter; it's a board tenureship, not a prison sentence and if someone feels like s/he can't serve in good faith based on their personal reasons and conscience, (and sometimes even send out press releases), I guess that's his/her privilege and perogative.

What issues can we find as common ground on to act in concert on? At an estimated prevalence of 1/150 (and some speculate 1/68 families), one would think we could constitute a pretty healthy voting and lobbying group if we could find issues of consensus and organize ourselves.

"we could constitute a pretty healthy voting and lobbying group if we could find issues of consensus and organize ourselves."

Yes---certainly the topic of this post has brought up many perspectives from many!

The organization "Cure Autism Now" no longer exists.  It became part of Autism Speaks.  When it did exist, it did not focus on biomedical treatments.

Yes, CAN's absorption into Autism Speaks was noted; certainly its use of "cure" in its name suggested a certain perspective about "treating" autism.

The divisiveness is quite evident in the comment thread; the belief that there "is" a link between vaccines and autism is indeed a _belief_.

Similarly, the belief that there "isn't" a link between vaccines and autism is also merely a *belief*.

Based in science.

(she says, getting ready for discussion of "what is science"!!!!!!!)

The belief that there is a link between vaccines and autism is also based in science.

Yes, that is exactly the point.

"...the IACC to engage the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) in mutually informative dialogues."...

If one wants to hear up close and personal what the content of the "mutually informative dialogues" are, my notice from the IACC says that the NVAC will be making an appearance at the July 15 meeting, in addition to the other topics of the meeting: Presentations on the NIH Autism Centers of Excellence and the National Database for Autism Research (NDAR),discussion of services-related activities and analysis of the autism research portfolio.

http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2009/full-committee-mtg-announcement-july15.shtml

A few other autism related U.S. Federal activities that are of at least equal interest to me are: The Autism Treatment Acceleration Act bills (S. 819, H.R. 2413), the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act (H.R. 2740), and the ABLE Accounts Act(s) of 2009 - S. 493, H.R. 1205. This does not exhaust the possibilities of useful and meaningful legislation. Congress currently has an adjournment date set in October for the 111th session.

(Hope the links work).

Sorry about missing the /b. I expect everyone's post will be bolded at this point on. Sorry.

took out the bold, thnk it should be all right now!