Vaccination and autism

Discussions and related news items
Martha
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm

Re: Vaccination and autism

Post by Martha » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:28 am

sharon wrote:
I think all children are born as perfect humans. I rejected the doctrine of original sin a long time ago.

Some children are born into poverty, war, abuse or neglect which clearly has a terrible effect on their development.
Children who are born by ceaserian section, or a forceps delivery, or some other traumatic medical intervention are not actually born "perfect" i.e., completely healthy. Such interventions/interferences inevitably traumatised the child either physically and/or psychologically. Many such infants eventually recover, just as many do not.

sharon wrote:
My son is lucky, but not as lucky as I am to be the mum of such a great boy. He was born autistic due to some combination in the genes of myself and his dad.
sharon, you are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. As far as I'm concerned, so-called autism is a behavioural (emotional) disorder and is therefore not a genetic condition - as Big Pharma et al would like us all to believe! Our genetic make-up is not responsible for our behaviour, our environment is - and our environment is full of extremely complex, subtle things - which parents are not always aware of.
sharon wrote: How many people would think it is acceptable to ask a mum what caused her own child's 'severe emotional distress'?
What's wrong with that question? As a mother myself, I would be very concerned as to why MY child was emotionally distressed. I'd want to know why and what exactly caused my child to be so emotionally distressed, i.e., physiologically disordered that s/he cannot function normally. For example, what's wrong with asking a mother of, say a Downes Syndrome child, what does she think caused her child to be born that way? I don't see anything insulting about such a question.
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.

Woody Allen
sharon
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:49 pm

Re: Vaccination and autism

Post by sharon » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:55 am

Martha wrote:sharon, you are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. As far as I'm concerned, so-called autism is a behavioural (emotional) disorder and is therefore not a genetic condition - as Big Pharma et al would like us all to believe! Our genetic make-up is not responsible for our behaviour, our environment is - and our environment is full of extremely complex, subtle things - which parents are not always aware of.
Obviously we are each entitled to our opinions. My views on this have been shaped by much study of the issues, and are based on the consensus opinions of scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and autistic people themselves. It is not my belief that autism is primarily cased by genes, it is based on evidence.

You wrote 'as far as I'm concerned' before giving your wholly mistaken opinion, making it a belief. This is a science/skeptism forum it's expected that opinions are backed up by more than mere faith, especially when challenged by evidence to the contrary.
Martha wrote:
sharon wrote: How many people would think it is acceptable to ask a mum what caused her own child's 'severe emotional distress'?
What's wrong with that question? As a mother myself, I would be very concerned as to why MY child was emotionally distressed. I'd want to know why and what exactly caused my child to be so emotionally distressed, i.e., physiologically disordered that s/he cannot function normally. For example, what's wrong with asking a mother of, say a Downes Syndrome child, what does she think caused her child to be born that way? I don't see anything insulting about such a question.
What's wrong with the question? It's an utterly irrelevant question!
After the links I provided, and after explaining the real meaning of autism, you still write that it's your opinion that people like my son are so 'physiologically disordered that s/he cannot function normally'.

Autistic people are not emotionally distressed or psychologically disordered, except by the terrible treatment many of them undergo at the hands of an uncaring, ignorant and bigoted society. Psychogenic theories used to be applied to autism until about 20 years ago, but they were never backed up by evidence and have been discarded.

I would also question the value of the expression, 'cannot function normally.'
People are diverse, and normal is in the eye of the beholder. Unlike the normal Irish family, mine is not white, christian or school attending. I do not seek to be normal, and if my child gets by in non-normal ways, then so be it. If he prefers more solitary leisure activities, or continues his interest in trains and roller coasters, or needs help with some everyday living issues that most people can manage alone, so what? I will help him to grow to be the best non-normal man he can be.
paulamcnc
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:10 pm

Post by paulamcnc » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:41 pm

Another clear and commonsense answer. I think your son is very lucky Sharon, to have such a level headed parent.

To address another comment, my eldest son was born with the help of a forceps. I have no doubt that this was traumatic for him, but as far as I can tell it was fleeting. It is certainly fleeting compared to the potential devastation that oxygen deprivation would have caused him, which would have been the case if he were not delivered quickly, as facilitated by the forceps. He was certainly perfect to me.

As for the phrasing of the question about the causation of 'severe emotional distress' it assumes that the person of whom the question is asked agrees with that characterisation.

As far as I know Downs Syndrome is caused by an extra chromasome. Not emotional distress. Not medical interference or intervention.
mkaobrih
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:48 pm

Post by mkaobrih » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:14 pm

Martha – I don’t know why I’m responding to you – as you hardly ever make any sense – but you are way - way out of line.
sharon
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:49 pm

Post by sharon » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:09 am

paulamcnc wrote:Another clear and commonsense answer. I think your son is very lucky Sharon, to have such a level headed parent.
Thanks very much!
To address another comment, my eldest son was born with the help of a forceps. I have no doubt that this was traumatic for him, but as far as I can tell it was fleeting. It is certainly fleeting compared to the potential devastation that oxygen deprivation would have caused him, which would have been the case if he were not delivered quickly, as facilitated by the forceps. He was certainly perfect to me.
How true, and I'll bet he was perfect.
As for the phrasing of the question about the causation of 'severe emotional distress' it assumes that the person of whom the question is asked agrees with that characterisation.
That's a good point to make. Asking the question when the other person clearly doesn't assign such a characterisation, is so very wrong.
As far as I know Downs Syndrome is caused by an extra chromasome. Not emotional distress. Not medical interference or intervention.
Exactly. The parents I know whose children have Downs syndrome, are so positive and fiercely proud of their children. They tell how strangers regularly think it's acceptable to ask them if they 'knew' about their children, before they were born. Can you imagine the gall to ask such a thing?
sharon
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:49 pm

Post by sharon » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:19 am

mkaobrih wrote:Martha – I don’t know why I’m responding to you – as you hardly ever make any sense – but you are way - way out of line.
Yes. I only responded to the 'emotional distress' bullshit, to ensure other people coming across the topic, weren't left with misinformation.
Martha
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm

Re: Vaccination and autism

Post by Martha » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:45 am

sharon wrote:
Obviously we are each entitled to our opinions. My views on this have been shaped by much study of the issues, and are based on the consensus opinions of scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and autistic people themselves. It is not my belief that autism is primarily cased by genes, it is based on evidence.
And my views are based on my own personal observation, i.e., lived experience. Note, I've met some scientists/experts in my time and some of them are, IMO, sane and some of them are not. Also, it so happens that MOST Irish (let's keep it local for now) are taking their lead (as in Following Orders) from Big Pharma - aka - Corporate America. That's not merely my opinion, its a fact. You can do your own research, I've done mine.

sharon wrote:You wrote 'as far as I'm concerned' before giving your wholly mistaken opinion, making it a belief. This is a science/skeptism forum it's expected that opinions are backed up by more than mere faith, especially when challenged by evidence to the contrary.
As I say, you can do your own research. At the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe. I've had to face some very unpalatable truths myself... and if I were to disclose some of them to you right now (about the Irish Medical/Health Establishment) you'd f***king freak out - as would a lot of other Irish people! Note, I'm still writing my book...
sharon wrote:Autistic people are not emotionally distressed or psychologically disordered, except by the terrible treatment many of them undergo at the hands of an uncaring, ignorant and bigoted society.
"Society" is made up of individuals and each one of those individuals is (as an adult) responsible for their own personal actions - and nobody else's actions. Therefore, if an individual is ignorant or bigoted, then that individual is personally responsible for his or her own ignorant/bigoted behaviour - unless of course, he or she is actually non compos mentis. That is, his/her brain is so damaged they cannot function normally, or is SO emotionally distressed (traumatised) they cannot function as an autonomous adult: e.g., choose to feel hungry/tired/sad/angry etc etc., when one actually is - because their physiological/neurological system is
quite literally "haywire". You know, like when someone has a stroke, they can no longer function in the normal way they once did...
sharon wrote:I would also question the value of the expression, 'cannot function normally.'
People are diverse, and normal is in the eye of the beholder. Unlike the normal Irish family, mine is not white, christian or school attending. I do not seek to be normal, and if my child gets by in non-normal ways, then so be it. If he prefers more solitary leisure activities, or continues his interest in trains and roller coasters, or needs help with some everyday living issues that most people can manage alone, so what? I will help him to grow to be the best non-normal man he can be.
I agree, Normality is very varied. When I use the term "normal" I don't mean it to be an addict to Big Mac or Britney Spears or any other of that normalised shite that so pervades our collective psyche: to me, all that so-called normality is decidedly and pathetically abnormal - but it is The Norm, after all!

On the contrary, normality to me is being free to choose what is good (as in BENEFICIAL) to one's own health and well-being, not least the continuation of one's healthy DNA (offspring). And to be honest, I don't see how Britney of a Big Mac is good for one's health. Do you?
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.

Woody Allen
Martha
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm

Post by Martha » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:10 am

paulamcnc wrote:my eldest son was born with the help of a forceps. I have no doubt that this was traumatic for him, but as far as I can tell it was fleeting. It is certainly fleeting compared to the potential devastation that oxygen deprivation would have caused him, which would have been the case if he were not delivered quickly, as facilitated by the forceps. He was certainly perfect to me.
A lot of children are born via forceps delivery and I too have no doubt that such an entrance into the world is extremely traumatic. However, it is my belief (as an atheist) that recovery from most traumatic experiences are dependent on the the environment into which we are born and grow up in, and find ourselves in. In other words, if our given environment is not receptive to our deep human, emotional needs, we will not make that recovery - without the help we need, as victims of trauma. Our environment is every bit as important as our genetic make-up. The one interacts with the other and therefore is complementary towards each other and Life goes on. Or, one side of the Natural Equation is effectively dead, and so there is no interaction.

Corpses don't respond.

paulamcnc wrote:As far as I know Downs Syndrome is caused by an extra chromasome. Not emotional distress. Not medical interference or intervention.
That's true.
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.

Woody Allen
Martha
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm

Post by Martha » Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:14 am

mkaobrih wrote:Martha – I don’t know why I’m responding to you – as you hardly ever make any sense – but you are way - way out of line.
So why don't you just ignore me?

And btw, why am I "way - way out of line", in your view?
Please elaborate.
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.

Woody Allen
paulamcnc
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:10 pm

Post by paulamcnc » Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:27 pm

Martha, in an earlier post you state that 'All emotional distress, ie., psychological disturbance is caused b y environmental factors-...' and yet in a later post you state 'our environment is every bit as important as our genetic make up' So, which is it? Either? Both?
Whichever suits?

If you agree that Downs Syndrome is caused by a chromosomal disorder why distress a parent by asking 'a mother of, say a Downes (sic) Syndrome child, what does she think caused her child to be born that way?
Post Reply