Autism - Common observations

Common observations.

The purpose of this communication is to set out
in simple terms the present status of the vaccine/autism problem.

There is no evidence available to support the
views held by a cabal of so-called medicinal
product regulators and health care
professionals that the observed increase in a
regressive developmental behavioural condition
having similarities to "autism" is not a real
increase but is due to "better diagnosing" or "diagnostic redefining".

Since there is, after a decade of experience, no
such evidence, the reality of an increase has to be accepted as fact.

What follows has nothing to do with science, just common observation.

Starting somewhere about 1995 reports began to
appear concerning a hitherto unrecognised
clinical condition in young children
characterised by inflammatory bowel disease and a
regressive behavioural disorder classified as
autism. Since that time parental accounts have
added numerous other abnormalities, all or some
of which are present in affected children.


The following is a list of reported characteristics-


1. A period of normal development
2. Loss of previously learnt
capabilities particularly speech, eye contact and, mistakenly, hearing.
3. Appearance of worsening bowel
problems - diarrhoea/constipation/incontinence/passage of undigested food
4. Abdominal pain often severe and disabling
5. Abnormal thirst
6. Body temperature
dysregulation and loss of thermal sensitivity
7. Prolonged periods of
hyperpyrexia in the absence of identifiable infection
8. Sleep disturbance, frequently very distressing
9. Repetitive muscular activity,
apparently uncontrollable - bizarre posturing possibly due to pain
10. Temper tantrums and prolonged screaming, convulsions
11. Violent behaviour
12. Even in the absence of speech
the child may communicate distressing insight into their own disablilities
13. Lack of appreciation of danger
14. Dietary intolerance, often severe
15. Failure to thrive
16. Precocious sexual development
17. Various biochemical abnormalities
18. Endoscopic and biopsy evidence of serious bowel disease.
19. Variable improvements with dietary restrictions
20. Gait disturbance, unsteadiness and tip-toe walking
21. Skin rashes in the absence of obvious cause
22. Raised urinary uracil and thymine levels
23. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency


This new syndrome has arisen within certain
particular circumstances. The simple observational facts are as follows -



1. There were no reports of any
affected children prior to the end of the
1980's. Almost all have arisen in the past 10 to 15 years.
2. There have been no reports of
children suffering the initiation of this
syndrome of abnormalities over the age of about
five years and almost all have been at a still
earlier age. There are no reports of the
syndrome first appearing in adolescence or adulthood.
3. This most unusual clinical
picture has arisen simultaneously in the USA, the
UK, Canada, Japan and most developed
countries. That is, between about 1990 (probably later) and 2008.

Whatever the cause of the syndrome may be it has
to be consistent with these three incontrovertible facts.

Any causative agent therefore must have been
either absent or inactive prior to the late
1980's, it must have been either inaccessible or
inactive to individuals over the age of about
five years and to have become active at precisely
the same time over most of planet earth. This is
not science, they are simply the requirements arising from common
observation.

It hardly needs to be said that causal
possibilities are considerably restricted. A
number of suggestions have been made which
include pollutants, dietary factors, infectious
agents and various toxic materials. None of
these are compatible with the observed
constraints which require, firstly, that they
would have been absent or inactive prior to the
end of the 1980's, secondly, they would have to
have been specifically and exclusively active in
young children and, thirdly, they would have had
to become available in widely separated countries at exactly the same time.

Someone I know in the past has been a United
Kingdom representative on the OECD Chemicals
Programme, the EU toxicology programme, a medical
advisor to the UK Ministry of Agriculture
Fisheries and Food, the UK Health and Safety
Executive and the Consumer Protection Unit of the
Department of Trade and Industry and has known
of no material or agent that would meet these requirements.

The expansion of childhood vaccination programmes
is a possible and plausible causative
factor. This is not science, it is a fact which
is consistent with the constraints. I fully
agree that this is not proof of causality it is
just the best possibility until someone comes up
with a better one. Until that time we have to
accept vaccination as the primary suspect.

The list of characteristics and clinical
disorders above strongly support the view that
some or all are basically autoimmune conditions
which are well known and accepted adverse
reactions to most childhood vaccines. This
raises yet another non-scientific question - if
we accept that certain autoimmune conditions,
Guillain-Barre syndrome, juvenile arthritis and
type 1 diabetes mellitus for example, are vaccine
related then why do we not accept these other
autoimmune disorders in the same way?

Finally, there are a number of children who,
having suffered some or all of the listed
disorders following a vaccination, undergo a
modest improvement until the administration of a
booster vaccination. Following a short period of
time the child suffers an exacerbation of the
original adverse effects - this is called
positive rechallenge. In the absence of any
other explanation the effect has to be accepted as causal.

Isabella

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:03:31 -0000, "JOHN" wrote:


What follows has nothing to do with science,

That is certainly true.

Starting somewhere about 1995 reports began to appear concerning a hitherto unrecognised
clinical condition in young children characterised by inflammatory bowel disease and a
regressive behavioural disorder classified as autism.

Err, no. So that really sinks the rest of this ramble doesn't it?
1995 was when one report, from Dr (for now) Wakefield recorded seeing
such cases. His description of the symptoms was not new and the vast
majority of doctors actually treating children (he is not a
paediatrician and has never done so) were dismissive of his claim of
having found a new syndrome.

The general view was (and remains) that he was merely observing what
had been seen in such children for many years. At the time Wakefield
was being paid by solicitors to find a relationship between MMR and
autism.

The following is a list of reported characteristics-

Which are not new.

1. There were no reports of any affected children prior to the end of the
1980's. Almost all have arisen in the past 10 to 15 years.

Kanner in 1943 described regressive autism (then called childhood
schizophrenia). Others have done similarly under different names
before then. It is false to claim the cases have only occurred in the
last decade or so.

Whatever the cause of the syndrome may be it has to be consistent with these three incontrovertible facts.

The "facts" are not incontrovertible, they are simply wrong.

This is not science, they are simply the requirements arising from common
observation.

Observation, common or not, does not involve manipulating and
inventing stories to fit a preconception.

It hardly needs to be said that causal possibilities are considerably restricted.

They would be if one is making up a story to fit the conclusion.

Someone I know in the past

Who?

The expansion of childhood vaccination programmes is a possible and plausible causative
factor. This is not science,

Correct, it isn't science - it is LaLa land. It is only made possible
by misrepresenting information.

it is a fact which is consistent with the constraints.

It would be as the constraint appears to have been manipulated to fit
the conclusion.

I fully agree that this is not proof of causality it is just the best possibility until someone comes up
with a better one. Until that time we have to accept vaccination as the primary suspect.

As your "facts" leading to this conclusion are obviously faulty does
it not follow that the conclusion must also be faulty?