Replies

I still think autism is a result of a combination of environmental and genetic factors. Plenty of women get sick during pregnancy and give birth to perfectly healthy infants. I wonder if there could be variants in the IL-17 receptors in the brain that make them particularly susceptible to damage.

I’ve also seen where some studies link higher rates of autism to febrile illness in the mother. Although it could be that febrile illnesses induce higher levels of IL-17 or other cytokines which are responsible for the damage.

This is fascinating stuff, and so very important. Because once the cause(s) of autism are described, that removes a huge talking point of the anti-vax (anti-baby) fraudsters. Plus, it opens doors to prevention—possibly treatment, but that’s a lot harder.

It would be a mistake to deride those who go to the extreme of becoming anti-vaccine, aka the euphemism beloved by vaccine sycophants, “anti-vaxxer.”

I know far too many people who have children with autism, Asperger and other disabilities. If modern medicine was not so intransigent, people wouldn’t become anti-vaccine to protect their children.

Vaccines are not sacrosanct; vaccine safety should be positive-feedback, not ignorant and defensive in the face of harm perpetrated upon children as a result of failure to make vaccines and their application safe for the mother and their offspring.

The simple fact of the matter is that many vaccines use chemicals & compounds which can be easily linked to biological reactions, yet they continue to be used.

For decades those critiquing vaccines and their sycophant defenders claimed that ethyl mercury was safe when injected into the bloodstream, on face value a laughable position from anyone who understands the elements. Not only did the establishment finally overcome the powerful lobby which persisted in using thimerosal, research has finally been performed which demonstrates toxicity resulting from ethyl mercury.

My response: Duh.

This research could be (emphasis on “could”) a sign of a trend, but the pressure to move to single-payer will quash all such research and destroy any remaining integrity in medicine & medical research.

Those who are considering having children in the coming years have genuine reason to be concerned, as it is best analogous to Russian Roulette whether you’re going to have a healthy child, given statistics on pre-term births and all the other unknowns.

Again, the ratio of affected children I know personally is quite troubling.

One observation: The “environmental factors” you refer to include “choices” by the mother. I’ve make the case in my book that mothers should be proactive in planning for pregnancy for up to 2 years prior to consideration of going full-term, as the one aspect medical research totally-ignores is rather academic: Mother’s health. People are far too quick to jump on the “new drug” or “gene therapy” bandwagon when basic health is likely the order of the day...