An upcoming Dr. Oz show will probably sensationalize autism, while maintaining only the most politically correct dialogue with regard to scientific findings. For many it might provide an hour of nothingness, to be added on to all the other fantasies that can be engaged upon in front of what can sometimes be referred to as the 15 minute fame idiot box.
Oh, the meanderings within the autism opus when it comes our media darlings, ones so recognized as infinitely informed; the ones who only allow the political correct agenda!
Let us not forget the panel that will be present on Dr. Oz...so much to gain from the emerging autism industry - so much booty(loot) for them to realize. The panel, more then anything else defines the dilemma for current autism research.
So evident today is the emergence of true dilemma that presents within any atmosphere where - if one might be able to get something personally gratuitous from a hypothesis which must become fact, they are compelled toward the data that falls in complete favor of the hypothesis; the probability factor for motivation askew, increases. Perhaps the reality of such atmosphere is the biggest and best reason for opposing sides, or parties that do not always agree - for all of those who are looking into legal matters or medical matters, or anything that matters. Debate is healthy, but the overwhelmingly politically correct media prohibits meaningful debate.
I am an obsessive compulsive writer gal who sometimes opposes those smarter...Why? Because, for some who engage upon significant and relevant quests for truth - but who also have realized a possibility to experience significant gain if their truth can become THE real truth; that quest then involves blindness to certain elements of the interpretations that the scientific journey involves. The questor's (researcher's) behavior becomes that of one who might engage upon incomplete interpretations, of the data. Consider what one epidemiologist finds...
After calculating results from published peer reviewed findings, an epidemiologist concludes that... "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims" Addtionally, "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true." (link) In part, this is said to be due to self serving data analysis.
It seems that both autism research, and researchers themselves have been compromised because autism itself represents a not-for-profit, six-figure salary. Actually, many have for-profit businesses that profit from autism too. And, while many make financial lemonade by parsing out the facts of autism in favor of their monetary agenda; families who have just left Eden (perfection) can be indoctrinated by the likes of Dr. Oz and his panel. They will probably have some focus on earliest intervention and vaccinations, and so goes this writing...
For the newly engaged parent who has just discovered that their child has a psychiatric condition called autism, a visit to the land of Dr. Oz might represent their very first step backward; an indoctrination into self-serving and politically correct circles of the autism elite. These elite have found willing prey among many parents, newly engaged. The Dr. Oz panel might at first inject as much fear as possible into the audiences' psyche with a half dose of only the most negative autism information. They may followed up with facts about how very impressive the overall panel assumptions are - even if data reveals otherwise.
Dr. Oz on vaccination:
The available scientific evidence indicates that vaccines don't cause autism. The recent finding about a girl who experienced a negative reaction to a vaccine with autism symptoms resulting was due to a preexisting metabolic disorder that was made worse by the vaccine. This is very different than what most people mean when they are asking whether vaccines cause autism. If vaccines do play a role, it is in making symptoms worse or more noticeable as would any immune challenge. The data on this will continue to be collected, but given the strong genetic basis of autism, it can be said that it is unlikely that any environmental event, including vaccinations, plays a big role in the majority of cases of autism.
Autism is a psychiatric label that does not elucidate cause, and vaccines do hold risks - just like the vaccination courts have indicated, a case at a time. Dr. Oz skimps on an important issue of immune system defects and this will be addressed below.
Autism as psychiatric label, comorbid disorder as verifiable cause:
All that autism is right now - is a label; it is given based upon expert clinical observation and testing. Autism is NOT associated with known physical cause. The autism label defines a condition evidenced by clinically exhibited features, of deficits and excesses that are present - but without verifiable cause. Autism is many times accompanied by conditions that have a medically identifiable cause. An incomplete sample of the conditions are; mitochondrial disease or disorder, seizures, phenylkentonuria, congenital rubella, tuberous sclerosis, hypothyroidism, and hearing impairment. Recent study indicates that there may be a significant enough subset of those within the autism spectrum who have mitochondrial disorder, just as the "...girl who experienced the negative reaction to MMR" - mentioned in the above quote.
Autism label confuses the issue and creates half hearted debate about vaccination truths:
Autism, in and of itself, IS a kind of missed-diagnosis because we DO NOT know exactly what causes the manifestation of autistic features. Furthermore, the autism label seems to be - becoming the sole rally cry that those in many media outlets and medical community use in an alarmingly general fashion, in order to deny the known risk of injury from vaccination. Even further, because the Wakefield debaucle has come to play, all perseverate on mercury as if it is the only ingredient in the vaccination; Thus, since Wakefield might have done what many say he did, all of sudden there is no question allowed with regard to vaccination safety.
There are known risks involved in vaccination, albeit the medical community has made a choice to allow a few to fall into devastating illness so that the many might never be exposed to certain illnesses. It is the herd's overall wellness that is emphasized when insisting upon the good of vaccinations. Even as, for the herd - opting out of vaccinations has always been considered reasonable under conditions where known predispositions to increased risk are present.
There are almost 40 conditions that suggest contraindication for various vaccinations according to the CDC and with that almost 60 notes for instructions to do with contraindications (link).
Some even proposed theoretical risks:
MMR does present known and theoretical risk. Contains albumin; theoretical risk of transmission of CJD and viral diseases. (link) The statement is on drugs.com. Other indications are given, as far as reasons for opting out of the MMR vaccination.
Residual DNA in vaccination carries potential to produce productive prolonged infection: Our very own government has considered the continuing alterations and manipulations of the cell lines being developed in order to produce vaccinations. Cell lines do utilize fetal material from abortion and thus, residual DNA from that fetal material is in vaccination cell lines. Designer Cells as Substrates for the Manufacture of Viral Vaccines, a report on designer cells utilized for development of vaccines (an FDA initiated report), considers overall productive infection as a risk consideration - not just infection that results in cancer.
...residual DNA has the potential, upon inoculation into the vaccine recipient, to produce infectious virus from this DNA and thus establish a productive infection.
Ongoing risk assessement of cell lines used to produce vaccinations:
Whether it is reported in toto by media or not, risk assessment - with regard to the cell lines that are utilized in order to produce vaccinations - is always at play behind the scenes. According to the aforementioned government initiated report, assessing risks of DNA residual presence in vaccines requires some absolute knowledge with regard to the amount of residual DNA being delivered via inoculation; that absolute number allows for understanding with regard to the probable amount of infectious agent being introduced. Keeping DNA residuals at 10ng or below is constantly emphasized in the already cited report, however what is also acknowledged is that there is no mechanism in place to enforce the standard - it is left to those who produce vaccines to practice diligence. What is not known, is if the manufacturers of vaccines have historically practiced due diligence by testing for amounts of residual DNA present in their products. A most recent whistleblower story causes me to think that due dillegence is not always first and foremost on the minds of drug or vaccine manufacturers...Getting things right every time is not the main agenda, even as that would be a requirement in order to assure overall safety.(CBS)
(From CBS) There was reason to believe that some of the medications were contaminated with bacteria, others were mislabeled, and some were too strong or not strong enough. It's likely Glaxo would have gotten away with it had it not been for a company insider: a tip from Cheryl Eckard set off a major federal investigation.
Infection, neurological illness connections: Ongoing research with regard to neurological illness evidence many experts who are coming up with data which demonstrates that the various neurological illnesses might have a lot in common - even though the they are recognized by many differing names. We hardly know everything there is to know about neurological illnesses, and we certainly do not know everything about the implications behind vaccinations. Dementia is proposed to have a number of possible causes including infectious viruses.
Researchers have established a link between HIV and Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) and the onset of dementia. The Center For Prions and Protein Folding Diseases in Alberta finds that... there may be common factors between prion diseases and other human diseases such as autism and Alzheimer’s. If one were allowed to consider all things, is it reasonable to ask if vaccinations present increased risk of detrimental infection that results in neurological illness for some?
Especially given the fact that CJD has been transmitted via (source):
- contaminated medical equipment
- use of pituitary hormone
- contaminated grafts
Transmission of CJD, from person to person, has resulted from the direct inoculation, implantation, or transplantation of infectious materials.
In addition... Bacteria for use in some vaccines are grown on a medium containing bovine heart and brain components. Thus there is a danger of transmitting Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease to the recipients of vaccines manufactured using this method. Accusations have been made about HibTITER and MMR vaccines. (source)
Possible causes for autism, various and environmental:
How curious it is that so many experts perceive autism to be a neurological illness, but the medical community and even vaccine manufacturers can simply say they did not contribute to at least a portion of the dramatic increase in autism...and this doable only as long as medical diagnostics do not yet perceive the exact neurological deficits that contribute to the sole presentation of autistic features. Reality in current research implies multiple causes for autism; possible cause is about everything to which our children are exposed to in their environment, including vaccination. Medical diagnostics did exist for the 1300 cases of vaccine related brain damage that were compensated for in court over the past two decades (link). Wonder how many of those cases involved children who, in addition to having conditions with known medical cause, also had the psychiatric label of autism?
Earliest intense intervention a cure for autism?
I note that the AAP will be represented on the Dr. Oz panel. I imagine there will be a great push for intense earliest intervention, and too early to tell autism labeling - as a cure (or only hope) for autism. There will be no mention of the following:
A percentage of autism affected children are going to realize high functioning or even normal function; this has always been the case - with or without earliest intensive intervention. Those who are pushing for the insurance mandates already know that, for a certain percentage of autism affected individuals, prognosis is favorable no matter the intervention. They also know that autism affected individuals in which onset represents the regressive form of autism - will not respond with a result of best case scenario outcome in spite of the earliest intervention utilized.
Here is a breakdown of the percentages (link to source):
Data from parental report on 2720 autism affected children found the following:
• Regression (n=44%): A loss of previously acquired social, communication or cognitive skills prior to 36 months.
• Plateau (n=17%): Display of only mild developmental delays until the child experiences a gradual to abrupt developmental halt that restricts further advancement of skills.
• No Loss and No Plateau (n=39%): Display of early warning signs of autism spectrum disorders without loss or plateau.
The above study... found children with early developmental warning signs may actually be at lower risk for poor outcomes than children with less delayed early development who experience a loss or plateau in skills. So the children in the No Loss / No Plateau group (39%) did not exclusively opt for intense interventions but experienced a good outcome in spite of interventions utilized. This would have been under criteria that did not utilized too early to tell labeling that current researchers embrace as a necessity for autism intervention. According to this above study's sample 61% will remain in the lifetime higher costs scenario due to the way in which onset of autism transpired, and earliest intervention will, in all likelihood, not be a contributory factor for reducing lifelong care expenses.
While the above data is factual, many in autism elite circles are given permission to present theory about earliest intervention (and too early to tell labeling) as scientific fact; a side effect to such fraudulent representation is that advocates are trying to legislate treatments as law. There are some who refer to the focus on mandating earliest treatments as cure (or at least a guarantee of long term betterment) - which is ridiculous and not proven.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation for ABA type teaching writes that the method allows children to "...make substantial, sustained gains in IQ, language, academic performance, and adaptive behavior as well as some measures of social behavior - and their outcomes have been significantly better than those of children in control groups." (31-40) The problem with the AAP ascertain is that the above claims have yet to be validated by any hard data in the scientific community.
The result of looking through the sources provided in support of the representation that substantial and sustained gains are realized via intense earliest intervention - is that the very sourced experts themselves defy the AAP stated conclusion that substantial, sustained gains have even been realized from intense earliest intervention. The experts' own contributions in the cited papers, state that more research is required to settle what type of benefit earliest intense intervention provides over both the shorter and longer term. The one study (Lovaas) that might support the AAP conclusion in a small way - has yet to be replicated since the decades' old results.
From the cited data provided for the recommendation given by AAP, one finds lack of support for conclusive findings on intensive earliest autism intervention outcome:
31) A three year study in which involved no longer term follow up after initial gains.32) No follow up after initial study.33) After two years the behavioral group made gains as compared to the control group - but they were not significant. No long term follow up. 34) A comparison between intensity and type of programming. No long term follow up. 35) No long term follow up. 36) Outcomes to the initial study of this group are questioned. A follow when the study group subjects were older indicated that they had become worse. The term recovered was used to describe children whose measured ability fell into the average range (upon initiation of programming) and (also to those) who were being educated within mainstream schools. Children with higher functioning autism could well achieve such outcomes via other interventions, and (furthermore) a follow-up of some of the recovered children at age 13 revealed a continuation of significant behavioral issues. (link) This initial study group result has not been replicated - to this day. (link) 37) Hours of treatment for the study were the closest replication as far as intensity of hours utilized in UCLA study (Lovaas). While results were comparable, high hours of intense supervision were not sufficient to make up for low levels of pretreatment skills....Consistent with previous study, low IQ and absence of language predicts limited progress. All this is according to the researchers. 38) A number of investigators have reported that children with autism make major gains with early intervention. The present review included nine such reports on behavior analytic treatment (and other treatments)......Unfortunately, close inspection of these reports reveals that the results have been less favorable than reviewer have claimed (Dawson & Osterling)...Of great concern, is that most studies have lacked even the most basic features fo scientifically sound studies. ...11 of 12 studies did not provide data on childrens' progress following the termination of treatment, a crucial omission because initial acquisition of some skills does not guarantee continuation of betterment or long term benefit. 39) The study had no follow up. 40) Early learning rates may predict outcome, but more research needs to be done... The answers may be gleaned from future research.
The autism intervention insurance mandates have already proven to be very anticlimactic for the majority of those affected by autism. The initial placebo effect wears off. I continue to question why those who advocate for these insurance mandates did not come alongside public schools who were already endeavoring to reach and teach those within the autism spectrum; such a better fit for the purpose of including autism affected children in with society. Public school services are already available to every child. As it stands now, the insurance mandates will have the unintended consequence of disincentivizing schools with regard to including the more severely involved autism affected individuals. This puts public service at disadvantage, a further disarray of programming.
I could go on & on & on - because there is much more to say. But this is enough. Too much for those who were just looking for a quick read. My daughter (who has the autism label) and my family will continue to learn from each other and laugh. What else is left to do, since we have left Eden and found happiness anyway.