Posted on 04/20/2005 8:26:42 AM PDT by agsloss
Lancaster, PA, Apr. 18 (UPI) -- Part 1 of 2. Where are the autistic Amish? Here in Lancaster County, heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country, there should be well over 100 with some form of the disorder. I have come here to find them, but so far my mission has failed, and the very few I have identified raise some very interesting questions about some widely held views on autism. The mainstream scientific consensus says autism is a complex genetic disorder, one that has been around for millennia at roughly the same prevalence. That prevalence is now considered to be 1 in every 166 children born in the United States. Applying that model to Lancaster County, there ought to be 130 Amish men, women and children here with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Well over 100, in rough terms. Typically, half would harbor milder variants such as Asperger's Disorder or the catch-all Pervasive Development Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified -- PDD-NOS for short. So let's drop those from our calculation, even though "mild" is a relative term when it comes to autism. That means upwards of 50 Amish people of all ages should be living in Lancaster County with full-syndrome autism, the "classic autism"...
-snip-
I have identified three Amish residents of Lancaster County who apparently have full-syndrome autism, all of them children. A local woman told me there is one classroom with about 30 "special-needs" Amish children. In that classroom, there is one autistic Amish child. Another autistic Amish child does not go to school. The third is that woman's pre-school-age daughter. If there were more, she said, she would know it. What I learned about those children is the subject of the next column.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The first part of your statement is actually in dispute-- although it has probably been reduced.
As to the second part: Please link us to your graph of diagnoses.
I responded to this theory from the same posting you did; it occurs way later so I hope you get to read it.
Operating from experience here: the lack of stimulation is not the issue for autistics. The issue is sufficient and specific stimulation without overstimulating, which causes a shut-down reaction in and by the brain.
You got that wrong. Reread my original response; I'm on your side.
I wondered continuously what could have happened to cause my child's strange disorders. What did I do to cause this. She didn't "talk" (put three words together ) until she was about 4, but I thought nothing of it. At the age of 11 months, we found out she had hip dysplazia - a mild genetic birth defect. So then for years I thought maybe with her not being mobile, her speech was delayed. But my daughter seemed like a normal child - until....
Enter an academic setting and things got very complicated.
Schools can be very damaging. My older daughter, age 23 now, with IQ 136 +/- 4 points, has ADD/LD, and suffered greatly to the stigma of being slow, dumb and stupid - even by one of her teachers who ridiculed her in front of her classmates when she made an F - in second grade.
We learn. We heal. We love. And we accept those less fortunate, we are humbled. We are wiser for it.
Please read items 3 and 4 from your own cite, and tell me again why we should believe anything put out by the medical community.
Sigh.
Again, my friend Robbie the Robot: Oh, ha ha. (LOL)
Although I dismissed it earlier, your post got me to thinking...
This is actually representative of how simple it is to skew results in your favor.
Let's say that a drug company wanted to hide the fact that there is a correlation between their particular drug and a syndrome like Autism.
Let's also say that, because the've been watching this link for longer than most of us peions, they've got additional data that we don't have; stuff like: autism clusters, amounts of vaccine sales in a correlating area, etc. Let's say there is also a genetic or environmental correlation to autism.
All the leader of the study would have to do is say something like: OK, let's base our study here and, just to discount any unfairness, let's exclude anyone with a history of autism in their family...
While the study would still be "officially" sound, it would tend to point away from their product if their with other causal factors that, taken together with their product, leads to autism.
Not saying it's happening here-- I'm just pointing out that, given the right information and incentive, a study could be designed to clear whomever needed to be cleared.
Who's got the most to lose if a causal relationship is found? ...and, of course, that sword cuts both ways. Given the incentives, though, who's research are you going to believe?
Google autism increase.
It's scary to see the number of folk out there who "truly believe" and no study can prove otherwise to them. It's a religion to them.
Methinks you might want to learn more about studies and what goes into them. There are good studies and bad studies, and there are things that defy studies.
It's a confusing world; isn't it?
OK, your turn: Google autism decrease.
Don't give this poster any awards yet; check his citations. Follow his postings and the responses to them in this thread.
Thank you.
Silliness I can do. Seriousness is a big problem for me.
But then, it's hard to take the world seriously when Christians are considered dangerous but homosexuals are considered normal.
Shalom.
I like it. And did you know that dirt does contain some good things, like aureomycin? That's one of the reasons free-range chicken eggs are better for you.
That's correct. Something about the measles organism in the vaccine, then remaining in the child's gut, continues to disable the production of a normal amino acid that (I think) prevents the body from absorbing and/or being affected by heavy metals in the body. When the gut is biopsied the measles virus or its residual can be detected; that's how the connection was made.
But then, it's hard to take the world seriously when Christians are considered dangerous but homosexuals are considered normal.
I agree. What's right is wrong and what's wrong is right.
I'm starting to think that times like these call for an OfficialWhateverDayItHappensToBeSillinessThread (OWDIHTBST). It's too hard to wait for Friday.
We learned, through dealing with video-game induced tantrums with our autistic son, that the brain has a hormonal system (among others) that is termed "adrenergic," meaning it is tied in with an adrenalin-like neurotransmitter. He doesn't play video games any longer. The NT system in his brain that "doesn't work right" is the one that was affected by the Pitocin -- the oxytocic system. I think it is virtually an opposite of the adrenergic system, which may explain some of his problem with tantrumming (on overstimulation).
It will take a few years to determine a trend.
I thought, however, that vaccination rates went down in the 90s.
And just you try and stop them (even if you signed a waiver). They'll do it BEHIND YOUR BACK IF THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, WITHOUT A TWINGE OF CONSCIENCE. THEY'RE SAVING THE WORLD!!!
I haven't read very far in the thread yet, but I want to ask a logical question. Why are you fighting a whooping cough epidemic from the few kids who do not vaccinate? If vaccinated kids are getting whooping cough, it is not the fault of the unvaccinated ones; instead, it means that vaccination doesn't mean immunization.
Conceding your point (which I'm not convinced is a good idea), see my postings on another significant cause of autism: Pitocin-induced delivery, which has been on the increase since at least the 60s. See The British Lance, 6/91, on a four-hospital study and the most aggressive program, giving the labor-inducing agent up to 2 weeks ahead of delivery, showing a 19% autism rate. That's slightly higher than 2:100 births. Could that be an epidemic by definition? I'd think so. Even the educational system is prodding the medicals about an epidemic.
I've never thought the vaccinations were as significant as the induction deliveries -- until they started getting even more aggressive with them (I think sometime in the 80s).
I also wouldn't put ALL my faith in the FDA's approved studies.
But on the link you provided the CDC has included the flu vaccine:
Influenza (flu) vaccine is a new addition to the recommended childhood immunization schedule. In 2004, the CDC added the vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, recommending that children 6-23 months of age be vaccinated against flu each year.
True the CDC states that thimerosal is not used as a perservative in pediatric vaccines but then it states:
Thimerosal still may be used in the early stages of manufacturing of certain vaccines, but is removed through a purification process, with only trace, or insignificant, amounts remaining.
According to the CDC, the last batch of pediatric vacs with thimerosal expired in 2003 with the exception of the flu & tentanus/diphtheria vac.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.