The ultimate "helicopter parent" is one who feels they must protect their child from every virus and bacteria that they can...by getting them all of today's available vaccines.

If most parents on this board "lived" to adulthood with only 7 or so vaccines, why must we inject today's kids with 20-30+ different vaccines? Prior to the 18th century, there really weren't vaccines. Look - the human race survived anyways!

We lived with less. Some live without any vaccines. Why don't we think that our children will survive too?

Many of us believe in God. Why don't we make sure all children have access to safe housing, adequate nutrition, clean water and a less stressful world? This will enable the body that our creator designed to work, as it was intended...and as it did for centuries without vaccines.

Perhaps, we would find the vaccines aren't the answer that many of us want them to be.

Great. Now I have to get a new monitor.

Me as one hovering helicopter parent:


http://www.autismvox.com/pilot-parenting/

Why didn’t neurologist Dr. Ivan Lopez give Bailey Banks a diagnosis of just plain “autism”?  His stated reason for choosing the PDD diagnosis instead of autism, according to the court’s ruling, was because autism has no known etiology, whereas in Bailey’s case he knew the cause, based on the medical evidence.  To quote from the ruling:

"Dr. Lopez distinguishes autism as a more generalized condition without a known etiology, and contrasted it to Bailey’s condition, which he says is clearly attributable to demyelination based on neuroimaging evidence."

"Speaking more directly, Dr. Lopez stated that 'Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.'"

Dr. Lopez said that "He certainly does not ___ [sic] for autism because over here we can find a specific reason for his condition and this is not just coming up with no reason."

However, the court stated in its conclusion, "that diagnosis was merely descriptive, not etiological: that of PDD, which is the condition both parties acknowledge that Bailey currently experiences."

Vaccines can never cause autism if autism is defined as having unknown causes, or as having purely genetic causes. Of course, the DSM IV does not refer to etiology but only to behaviors such as:

- impairment in social interaction

- impairments in communication, and

- restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities.

Bailey was described as having "speech delays, and social interactive difficulties (e.g., poor eye contact and biting) 'His eye contact is variable. He has limited to no imaginary pretend play. He continues to bite excessively....'"

As with Hannag Poling, the government's and other vaccine defender's spin will be that Bailey did not really have autism. But as others have pointed out, his case is like thousands of other cases described by parents: post-vaccination seizure, fevers, loss of language and social skills and even diminished motor skills/coordination.  And it is consistent with scientific studies of people with autism showing inflammation in the brain and auto-antibodies to myelin basic protein.

Where regression into autism follows a vaccine reaction but there is no proven cause, this is said to be "just a coincidence".

Where there is a proven cause, this is said to be "not autism because we know the cause. It's something else -- mitochondrial disorder -- Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis."

But the fact is, vaccines can cause these conditions, which result in autism.

Interestingly, Dr. Lopez said that up to 50 percent of patients who have had ADEM will show PDD as a consequence of this condition.

Still more on Hannah Poling here

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/04/11/polinged0411.html

@Kristina - I guess quite a *lot* on Hannah Poling, three times over!  :-)

But more seriously - as someone who is still seriously agnostic on the issue of "causation" (I believe my child is neurologically configured as "autistic" and there isn't any question of trying to "cure" her of her essential neurological makeup, but I also do perceive certain external factors -- seizures, diet, allergies, sensory overload -- as clearly affecting her ability to manage her daily life, and pace those who believe the biomed framework is "bad science", I am convinced that I have seen direct improvements in her daily-life management with treatment of GI issues and other biomed approaches -- not just changes with age, but back-and-forth responses with suspension and resumption of treatment), I am also puzzled about the distinction being drawn here between labels of "PDD" and "autism", especially if it's true that the PDD label was given because there was an apparent "cause" for the developmental disorder -- my child's diagnosis is PDD-NOS, encephalopathy; does this mean she shouldn't be considered "autistic"?  (I don't think so, but is that not the argument that is conveyed above?)  Is there a qualitative difference between "autistic symptoms" caused by a medical reaction or condition (?? can we accept that those exist??) and those that are "inherent" in someone's neurological makeup -- and if so, what counts as the "trigger condition" or event?  Or are autistics potentially susceptible (more so than those whose neurology is "typical", a term that strikes me as problematic) to a variety of "disruptive triggers" that interfere with the ability to process information and/or manage daily activity?  I think that autistic adults have spoken articulately to this (I'd say Dora herself, on this forum, for example).  So what counts as a "trigger"?

Another angle: would it make a difference if Hannah Poling's parents considered her autistic-by-birth AND vaccine-damaged (because of her higher susceptibility to "disruptive triggers")?  Do tendencies toward autistic neurology before a "regression" automatically invalidate the contention that the "regression" had an external trigger?

(I'm aware that Amanda Baggs, for example, has articulately argued on her website -- see for example http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?cat=95 -- that "regression" may be a highly problematic construct when dealing with autistic individuals, whose skills/abilities may fluctuate widely on a regular basis because of the very nature of their neurology, so I'm not arguing from a position of certitude here... again, agnostic...)

Speculation speculation speculation. If this, then that. If that, then this. Coulda shoulda woulda. Misrepresentation, fallacies, reductionism...on and on. Doesn't anybody ever get sick of fighting reality?

I'm curious about something. I never have seriously averred that "different wiring" or whatever is the "sole" explanation for autism, so movin' on.---why were my two children with these issues also born with hyperflexible joints? Born with 'em. Didn't get vaccines at birth. Sorry. And many children have a similar trait. There's a syndrome here, and it's not something that vaccines do. There are several aspects to the syndrome that are inborn, not environmental, and that emerge as common similiarities. For a fun one, I suggest googling "Chiari malformation." Not somethin' a vaccine could do. Of course, it's a syndrome, so no one person will manifest in exactly the same way. Littla this, littla that. But what we've got around our house and the homes of many many others is a global, organismal effect from birth that is not something of a single environmental etiology, and to continue to beat that dead horse and assert otherwise is to continue to fight against reality. It is just so bizarre to me that the etiology of something like this gets politicized the way it does. It is what it is. Wishing otherwise, blaming otherwise, throwing money at it otherwise, exploiting others for money for it otherwise--doesn't change that.

@Emily - specifically to the hyperflexibility - certainly a genetic trait, one that does seem to be shared by many autistics, to judge from descriptions I've read by adult autistics; also a trait that evidently can in some cases (again based on accounts I've read by adult autistics) create problems in handling items, hand strength, and pain, etc; and such problems can in some cases then be fruitfully "managed" with such things as muscle-strengthening exercises or finger splints, without "curing" the hyperflexibility (which may, in other cases, be a positive thing for the hyperflexible individual).   Thus, money can be thrown at the "problem" of hyperflexibility without wishing or blaming anyone for the genetic trait.  How would "throwing money" at any other potentially difficult consequence of the genetic predisposition, in order to overcome difficulties brought about by that consequence, be qualitatively different?

I suppose one could argue that splints are "proven" to work, while some medical approaches to "co-morbidities" (?) associated with autism are not "proven".  And I have no doubt that some "autism cures" are snake oil (de-ionized water, anyone?).  (Frankly, I think that anything that bills itself confidently as a "cure" for autism is worth running away from as fast as legs can carry one.)  But I think, given the varieties of issues under the umbrella of the syndrome, that *some* medical approaches (even those that are not lab-tested to the satisfaction of everyone on this board) do make a positive difference by helping *some* individuals cope more easily with the negative aspects of complexities brought on by their "atypical" (??) neurological wiring.  I think you and I would part ways in defining precisely who is "exploiting others for money" and who is making a good-faith and at least partially successful (thus worthwhile, if not in any way perfect) effort to assist with physical and emotional distress -- but I have no problem with agreeing to disagree on that issue.

PS - I tried to insert a /b code at the top of this message to get rid of the "always-bold", per my earlier note... we'll see if it worked.

Hi Concerning the Bailey Vaccine Induced Harm Case admitted by HHS in 2007

Old news but perhaps the actual money sums have recently been settled in Feb 2009? I note that annual hand outs for care only kick in when mom and dad are dead and this lad is on his own. IF the price is fixed how much will this be. I ask only as I had a top job with top pension from work in the 60's and the pension comes out at 10 cents a year which was good money at one time.

Some problems with the numbers as it looks as if the risk of ADEM is actually 20 times higher from vaccines in actuality than people are going around quoting.

This is significant as few people only thousands get measles but millions get the vaccines.

This would imply to my mind that for 20 cases of ADEM only one is likely to be from wild virus.

I would ask in addition to going back to the single live vaccine that why not develop a killed virus vaccine for measles.

This to me would be answering the questions of those claiming to find measles in some children adversely affected by any of the past MMR or MMR+ vaccines of which only one is now in current use.

[/b]

Is the bold gone?

I think there can be a lot of coincidences in life.  As in, correlation doesn't equal causation.  Vaccine court isn't science, though, it's legalities and politics. 

And, I think the word they are looking for is PDD-NOS.  You can't be diagnosed with PDD, or ASD.  You can, though, be diagnosed with PDD-NOS.

Turn off the lights Christina and go home. You can not tear apart the diagnosis for your own cause. Autism and Autism like are the same. As well as the entire spectrum included in the diagnosis. There is a real pattern and parents see it. Call it Autism you are denied. Call it Mito or PDD and you get money. Well there is either darkness or light. In this case since we only see what is shown to us well after the fact, most logical thinkers will assume there is more. Two that say vaccines cause autism. Three that say it doesn't. In this case two wins because once you have conceded it once. You lose and children win because now we can move on and get help from the people who hold the money and should be paying. Your bias for big Pharma makes me ill. Are you on the payroll?

Diagnoses are based on symptoms.

Yet, symptoms are not the problem. They are only signals which we use to delineate one diagnosis from another.

If there were effective treatments for one particular diagnosis, I could see the benefit in being precise about that diagnosis. But for all developmental problems, I have yet to see any effective treatment.

It seems to me that the problem for all developmental problems is that the developmental process has become sluggish or has been shut down.

About why do we need to point at a precise cause (such as vaccines):

I suspect that for many of us, we want to 'know' it is not our fault.

I suspect that for researchers there is a search for the silver bullet and for that they need to find the silver target, so they can track backwards to figure out the bullet.

I think the silver target is our individual mechanisms which we use to react (based on our own susceptibility) to environmental triggers by shutting down our developmental process.

I think that the most effective thing we can do is determine by individual testing what each child's triggers are and clear those things from the child's environment.

I suspect that GFCF and Feingold diets work for those whose triggers are restricted by the diet they are on. But, testing is essential to determine which triggers a specific child is reacting to.

PS: You can block text and Ctrl-i for italics and Ctrl-b for Bold.

I don't know if the bold works because this thread has been infected. Do you think it was a vaccine that caused this?

I'm pretty sure it was a virus and that the thread needs a vaccine. Perhaps Kristina, being in the pocket of Big Pharma, could pull some strings.

I also don't understand how they decided that Bailey had PPD-Nos and not Autism because they knew the cause. My child has the straight up Autistic Spectrum Disorder diagnosis and he had encephalopathy and demyelination (amoung other things) diagnosed prior to that. He is also very High functioning. I have a friend whose daughter has the PPD-Nos diagnosis and she is much lower functioning than my son. To me it is all Autism and the label really doesn't matter. Potatoe/Potatoe. Our Psych also stated to me that once my sons language skills increase he may upgrade his diagnosis to Asperger's. What??? I thought to get an Asperger's diagnosis you can't have had a severe speech delay??? So diagnosis really depends on the Doctor.

Sonya, I work with many families whose trust has been unfortunately placed in a physician with little to no understanding of the basic diagnostic criteria for the PDD's, including PDD-NOS and Asperger's.  Most physicians think ASD is a diagnosis; it's not.  Let us hope they know more about other medical conditions...

You might want to strongly encourage your Psych to do a little reading, or you may need to find someone more familiar with treating ASD.  There are plenty of resources if you choose to go the "traditional" medical route, including medications; your doc has no excuse to make a comment like that.

Sonya, I understand the frustration of having a limited pool of docs from which to choose.  I had to move our family away from a good job and good friends to an area close to the services my son needed, few as they were.

I dont know where you are, and am only familiar with Colorado-area resources, but every state has orgs or clinics that are designated as "autism centers of excellence" or something like that, depending on the state; you might try contacting them if you havent already.  You might also try the Autism Treatment Network to find a better clinic.  More info on the ATN can be found at www.autismspeaks.org/science/programs/atn/index.php.

As for your psych doc, you know better than I do what might work to get this guy some accurate info he will acknowledge.  While a battle worthy of the fight, you will have to choose whether you have the time and the energy to approach this issue as well.

There is a growing lack of trust between pharmaceutical companies and the entire health industry as a whole and patients.  There is no doubt that it is a money making industry that has more than once been found to put a higher value on finances than it does on life.

I read the book by Jenny McCarthy, Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism.

I'm not willing to write off the possibility that in some cases vaccinations do contribute to the onset of autism.  I also am of the mindset that if vaccinations have toxins that can safely be taken out, or schedules can be adjusted to be safer for sensitive children, that these are things we should do for the overall well being of our children regardless of whether or not we have absolute proof that this toxin will cause that symptom, condition, or disease. 

It's a no brainer to me.