It has this month been reported that the regressive form of autism does not tend to have an abrupt start (as commonly perceived, especially by those blaming vaccines for causing a sudden start of the condition). Instead the condition develops gradually from age 6 months up to 3 years (and possibly onwards as the study stopped there).
This is of course very compatible with the causation proposed in the update review of the antiinnatia theory, because that causation itself does not strike suddenly (like a vaccination shot) but instead builds up gradually with the infant's cumulating constant inhalation [breathing in] of the mother's dental mercury vapor.
The accompanying observation that parents tend to under-perceive their child's abnormality can be simply understood in terms of the universal natural reluctance to believe bad news. Which for a parent who already has an autistic child, is even badder news.
Flawed study of adult autism in UK
The NHS has recently published a study of the extent of adult autism in the UK ("Autism Spectrum Disorders in adults living in households throughout England - Report from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007").
It supposedly shows that there has not been any real increase of autism over recent decades. This is the same NHS that's just made a huge scare-campaign in support of the swine-flu scam, and that gives its endorsement to the fraudulent SCENIHR report as supposedly proving the safety of dental amalgams, even despite numerous people pointing out the falsities of that report.
This autism report is also unacceptably flawed. Some of the flaws are detailed at this campaigning website (at which some of the other content is itself flawed wishful-thinking):
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/uksurveyautismlink/.
I myself had dismissed the NHS report for the simpler reason that there is no way indicated of establishing comparability of a test applied to children and a test (even if the same one) applied to adults. But I now welcome the additional critiques raised by childsafetyhealth. Another critical review can be found in issue 34 of The Autism File.
It supposedly shows that there has not been any real increase of autism over recent decades. This is the same NHS that's just made a huge scare-campaign in support of the swine-flu scam, and that gives its endorsement to the fraudulent SCENIHR report as supposedly proving the safety of dental amalgams, even despite numerous people pointing out the falsities of that report.
This autism report is also unacceptably flawed. Some of the flaws are detailed at this campaigning website (at which some of the other content is itself flawed wishful-thinking):
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/uksurveyautismlink/.
I myself had dismissed the NHS report for the simpler reason that there is no way indicated of establishing comparability of a test applied to children and a test (even if the same one) applied to adults. But I now welcome the additional critiques raised by childsafetyhealth. Another critical review can be found in issue 34 of The Autism File.
"Whose side is Robin P Clarke on?"
Since the publication of the theory, three entrenched factions have appeared in the autism causation world. A first faction believes autism can never be a problem, so cannot need curing or be a disorder. A second faction believes that vaccines, either MMR or mercury-containing thimerosal (or latestly Hep-B) have caused autism to increase. A third faction is the corporate medical establishment which promotes the idea that autism is a primarily genetic disorder and that the increase is not real but just the effect of increased awareness or diagnosis.
My involvement in autism research pre-dates all these factions and I partly disagree with all of them, but also partly agree with them all. I see some sound work from all of them and also some abysmally unsound work from all of them. I'm not in the business of taking sides. I judge publications on their reasoning and evidence rather than the partisanship of the conclusions or authors. In my experience as exclusively a theorist, I have to conclude that it is very rare for even biased parties to actually falsify their raw data; if they did so it would be impossible for my theories to so comfortably accommodate them as they do. Meanwhile, far too many people insist on following the false "logic" that "there's no smoke without fire". A crooked institution arranges a cover-up even if there is in reality not some catastrophe genuinely there to be covered up anyway.
My guess is that these factional differences will melt into history just as the silly confrontation of "Wagnerians" versus "Brahmsians" did.
My involvement in autism research pre-dates all these factions and I partly disagree with all of them, but also partly agree with them all. I see some sound work from all of them and also some abysmally unsound work from all of them. I'm not in the business of taking sides. I judge publications on their reasoning and evidence rather than the partisanship of the conclusions or authors. In my experience as exclusively a theorist, I have to conclude that it is very rare for even biased parties to actually falsify their raw data; if they did so it would be impossible for my theories to so comfortably accommodate them as they do. Meanwhile, far too many people insist on following the false "logic" that "there's no smoke without fire". A crooked institution arranges a cover-up even if there is in reality not some catastrophe genuinely there to be covered up anyway.
My guess is that these factional differences will melt into history just as the silly confrontation of "Wagnerians" versus "Brahmsians" did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)