TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

So how are some pregnant women getting exposed to more metals? I know several women with autistic children, and they don't have jobs that would have subjected them to higher metal levels.

---

 Do you know some gun, especially sugar free, has metals in it?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

So how are some pregnant women getting exposed to more metals? I know several women with autistic children, and they don't have jobs that would have subjected them to higher metal levels.

---

 Do you know some gun, especially sugar free, has metals in it?

---

 So we're back to artificial sweeteners, which I've been saying are evil all along.

---

 Yep. I admit, your are correct, including the the GMOs which I now believe are the bigger evil in our food supply.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Autism is not new, nor the result of dietary substances.

It wasn't given a name until about 30 years ago.

You know it better as when someone would be called "backward".

It's also genetic.

---

It's about a 1000 times more prevalent than it used to be.  Hell, it climbed 30% just between 2008 and 2010. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Autism is not new, nor the result of dietary substances.

It wasn't given a name until about 30 years ago.

You know it better as when someone would be called "backward".

It's also genetic.

---

It's about a 1000 times more prevalent than it used to be.  Hell, it climbed 30% just between 2008 and 2010. 

---

 And there is a whole lot of over diagnosis, too.

It's become the catch all for any type of behavior issue.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

"head" in sand...

---

 Hahaha

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Autism is not new, nor the result of dietary substances.

It wasn't given a name until about 30 years ago.

You know it better as when someone would be called "backward".

It's also genetic.

---

It's about a 1000 times more prevalent than it used to be.  Hell, it climbed 30% just between 2008 and 2010. 

---

 And there is a whole lot of over diagnosis, too.

It's become the catch all for any type of behavior issue.

 

---

 saheadnd

---

 Cute.

You are not the only one who can read data, studies, and reports.

You want to hang your hat on poisons in foods for everything. 

Go ahead. 

But stop trying to discredit another person's knowledge.

Autism is not new. 

FNW wrote:

---

I don't think it's new either, it just didn't have a name. Back in my time it was hyperactive or misbehaved, or slow, even the "r" word. Which, was not meant to be derogatory, demeaning or critical, that's just what was used. I'm not sure anyone really understood it back then. And I agree that the diagnosis is overly used these days as well. They just lump a lot of kids into it, some have it, some don't, but it doesn't matter as long as they can pump them with drugs.

---

 It has been around for a long time and probably has many causes including genetics and diet of the mother while pregnant. Many conditions in this world can be amplified by what is in our environment to include food.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Exactly.

It's a catch all.

Much like ADHD was for a while.

---

 Autism is a catch all?  I don't think so.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Exactly.

It's a catch all.

Much like ADHD was for a while.

---

 Autism is a catch all?  I don't think so.

---

 No but like my son some so-called "professionals" can try and label a child.  Yes I understand autism is most definitely real and know families that has a child with autism.  

Where to start?

Autism, something I have first hand knowledge of, have been inundated with information about, have been through classes to deal with, is not a result of food. 

It is genetic.

Because the spectrum is so great, anyone who doesn't make eye contact, or won't immediately respond, or maybe shakes their leg during class, or won't stay seated, or they don't like change, or anything else that a teacher, parent, or ill-informed lay person can, and will, and have said "oh, this child is autistic.

It takes a battery of tests to get a diagnosis. 

There are 2 groupings of tests.

One is a cursory grouping, the results end up being a 50 page report.

Depending on what that 50 page report says, the child may or may not need to do the next grouping.

It takes 3 days and nets a report of usually 100 pages.

It's based on everything from previous conception history of the child, that covers everything that can be learned about the parents.

There are mental tests, cognitive, associative, and retention abilities. 

Speech, motor skills, sensory, group and individual, medical, educational tests.

There is a lot more that goes into diagnosing autism than just someone who has read an article here or there.

As I said, I know what I am talking about.

Yes, I do believe a lot of behaviors can be corrected.

As an example, my son would flap his hand. I began making him aware of it. It stopped after a few months.

He went through the tests, he has a diagnosis of autism.

I firmly believe a lot of the behaviors can be stopped.

I also believe there are those who want to label without proof.

And that is where the problem starts.

Now, my disabilty has also been diagnosed by doctors, 5 of them, actually. 

And yes, I do get pissy when I read some of the crap posted on threads here.

Until you, general you, have been walked that mile in the shoes of anyone seeking disability, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

As for the topic of this thread, autism is gentic.

FNW wrote:

---

I'm curious...and I'm not discounting your understanding that it's genetic...why is NIH conducting research if they already know the cause?

---

 We know that there’s no one cause of autism. Research suggests that autism often develops from a combination of genetic and nongenetic, or environmental, influences. These influences appear to increase the risk that a child will develop autism. However, it’s important to keep in mind that increased risk is not the same as cause. For example, some gene changes associated with autism can also be found in people who don’t have the disorder. Similarly, not everyone exposed to an environmental risk factor for autism will develop the disorder. In fact, most will not.

HOWEVER, variations in almost 300 genes have been associated with Autims and these explain less than 10% of the individuals with autism. So no, they DON'T know the cause. 

As to the increase in diagnosis, sure there is a small number of over diagnosed and misdiagnosed children/adults.  But for the most part, as science has gained better understanding of the disorder more people WITH the disorder are able to be diagnosed.  And as the disorder itself has been reclassified and reclarified and expanded, the "numbers" seem larger.  Ex, getting rid of Aspergers as its own separate diagnosis and adding it into the Autism Spectrum.  

The same can be said with a number of mental illnesses.  Depression was pretty basic diagnosis in the beginning with an almost small list of symptoms.  But now we have subsets of Depression - major depression, persistent depressive, SAD, Postpartum, PMDD, Situational and Atypical.  Before the better understanding (which is to say not a perfect understanding) people with Seasonal Affective Disorder would not be considered CLINICALLY depressed, but now with the better understanding on how light affects the brain, it IS considered a Depression Disorder.

therefore the numbers of people diagnosed with Depression has risen.  

You can probably use this with a number of physical diseases, from Diabetes, to Cancer to Thyroid diagnosis really.  And to dismiss a diagnosis as "overly diagnosed because people are lazy or looking for a cop out" is just plain silly. 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

You have got to kidding me.

Ok. You are just being obstinate and refusing to understand what is said.

I'm not going to play this game with you.

You know darn well what I mean.

---

 I understood EXACTLY what you said.  I don't agree with you.  I think you don't want to admit that the causes can be environmental and/or have anything to do with what we do or don't do.  

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

You have got to kidding me.

Ok. You are just being obstinate and refusing to understand what is said.

I'm not going to play this game with you.

You know darn well what I mean.

---

 I understood EXACTLY what you said.  I don't agree with you.  I think you don't want to admit that the causes can be environmental and/or have anything to do with what we do or don't do.  

 

 

---

 But you were adamant that those who thought vaccines could be a link to autism were crazy.