Babs

Hi Nypaemt39! Nice to "meet" you too. I would like to go through that site you posted. It seems like a lot of information there. I also want to say "thanks!" to Annie and Happiness for their kind words. This has been a really interesting thread and I'm very curious to see where it goes from here. I belong to a forum for Moms of kids with an ASD but it's mostly about emotional support. It's nice for a change to be a part of a discussion that is trying to deal with facts.

Hello everyone. I am DwayneEMTP's wife, Barbara. Even though I'm not in the EMS field he occasionally sends me links to posts on here because I might be interested in throwing my 2 cents in the mix. Obviously, this subject is near and dear to my heart but also I'd like to toss a few things out there that may add to the discussion. I'm sorry this is such a long post but this thread has taken many interesting turns and I'd like to comment on several of them. First, I'd like to talk about the "epidemic" of autism. When it's suggested that we are just better at diagnosing it, that is not exactly the case. We're not better at finding the kids, we're better at defining autism. Since it was actually acknowledged as a disorder, they've spent the last 30 years redefining it and widening the criteria. And I'd be willing to bet that when the next DSM edition is released that the net will be wider still. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides criteria for all current psychiatric diagnoses. The first publication was in 1952 with new editions or revisions published in 1968, 1980, 1987, 1994 and 2000. Prior to 1980, what we now call an autism spectrum disorder was primarily diagnosed as childhood schizophrenia because there was no designation for autism. As late as the 70's, some autistic children and adults were being treated with electric shock therapy and LSD which shows a complete inability to understand the symptoms of autism. According to the 1980 edition (DSM-III) there were only 6 symptoms of autism and all 6 had to be displayed in order to receive a diagnosis of autism. Hard to say what the diagnosis was for the child with only 5 symptoms. The latest edition (DSM-IV-TR) categorizes 16 symptoms and the child only needs to display 6 of them to be considered on the autism spectrum. So you can see with the progression of the standards used to diagnose autism, the numbers would have to rise alarmingly also. It becomes even harder to distinguish it from the increased use of vaccinations. Wouldn't the means of finding autistic children need to have been consistent over the last 30 years to compare it to the vaccines of the last 30 years? As awareness increases, so does the number of parents having their children tested. Which would also contribute to the rise in statistics. Having a child that is non-verbal forces the issue but a huge percentage of these kids speak perfectly fine (Asperger's Syndrome) and would have previously been seen as having behavioral or emotional issues. Or even the victims of bad parenting. Now that we know that's not true, it sort of opens the flood gates to new diagnoses. The rules keep changing so how can we know what's really going on? Also, when it comes to the vaccine connection it's important to remember that no one has ever claimed to have proof of that except Dr. Andrew Wakefield. You should know that he was actually hired by lawyers specifically for the purpose of finding a connection between vaccines and autism and stood to gain financially from the outcome of the lawsuit. The medical journal that originally published his findings printed a retraction after independent researchers were finally able to dig through Wakefield's research. He lost his medical license in England, so now he's come to the US. The current estimation of autistic children being diagnosed is 1 in 110. (Let's call that 10% just for the sake of my lacking math skills ) That means that about 90% of vaccinated children are unaffected by autism. If the vaccines were the sole cause in otherwise healthy children, shouldn't the numbers be much higher than that? Recently, some pediatricians are coming forward to say that they don't agree with bombarding infants with multiple vaccinations because it's easier for the doctor or it saves money on doctor's visits. They are saying you should consider restricting them to one vaccination per visit with at least a month or so in between. But that suggestion isn't really about preventing autism so much as it's about the general good health of the infant. As to the original post, it's extremely difficult to find professionals who support changes in diet and supplements as a 'cure' when they're not also trying to sell you something. The snake oil salesmen have really come out of the woodwork on this one. And to suggest that you could need up to 2 years of treatments to fully appreciate the benefits of the treatment seems like an attempt at locking you into buying their stuff until they close up shop one day and run for the Bahamas. A lot parents have reported improvement after diet changes but mostly for the GI issues that many autistic children have. Children without autism are also benefiting from the gluten free/casein free diet and probiotics, so do dietary changes have any more of a connection to autism than to the preservatives they've been pumping into our food for generations? My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that, for the autistic children with digestive disorders, autistic symptoms are severely intensified. They are nauseous, have diarrhea and/or stomach pain on nearly a daily basis. Since autism is a disorder that is driven by anxiety and a lack of communication, it makes perfect sense that once you remove digestive symptoms there would be a remarkable improvement in general well being. I'm not surprised that parents see improvements in behavior when their child is no longer in a constant state of distress. I've read about a lot of studies over the years that have tried but failed to find conclusive connections: Stress during pregnancy Vitamin deficiency during pregnancy Gene mutation Parents who fail to make an emotional connection during the child's infancy High concentration of heavy metals in the system Vaccine preservatives Intestinal flora I'm sure there's more but to be honest I've stopped reading articles that begin with "Researcher believe they may have found a connection between autism and...." For now, we're just doing the best we can to make sure our son is loved and has a place in this world where he's safe and is free to live his own life to the best of his ability.

There is no doubt that childhood is confusing under normal circumstances but when it comes to the justice system and state legislature it is frustrating that the contradictions don't cause more of a stir. Charging a 12 yr old as an adult for Murder 1 is absolutely wrong. Think of the most tragic and horrible crime that you can and then ask yourself how young of a child are you willing to charge as an adult. Maybe that 5 or 6 yr old who is already showing symptoms of serial killer behavior should be tried as adult also? Where do we draw the line? For many years, the line was 18 yrs old. Then we decided that 17 was pretty close to 18 so if the crime was bad enough they could also be tried as an adult. Then it was pretty common to see 16 yr olds who committed felonies being tried as adults. Now there are intelligent, college educated people suggesting that we have all we need to make adult decisions of right and wrong at the age of 12. Again, where do we draw the line? I find it interesting that only when we are speaking of criminal activity are we willing to lower the bar. You can't vote, join the military, sign a legal document, or enter into any type of binding agreement until you are 18. We used to think you were mature enough at 16 to drive a car all by yourself but many states are restricting driver's licenses now until the driver is 18. Some states believed you were mature enough to drink alcohol at 18 but now as a nation we have decided that you needed a few more years under your belt before you could drink responsibly. Are we really at a point where we think that anyone is beyond redemption at 12? At that age, it's safe to say that you knew it was wrong to hit a toddler with a baseball bat but can you really say that he had an expectation that the child would die? Isn't that what Murder 1 is all about? Premeditation? Shouldn't we start at anger management issues and go from there. By the way, in a second story on the Miami Herald website they say that the boy has no previous record and they were unable to report any previous acts of violence. The toddler he was babysitting was his cousin. So there were at least 2 adults involved in deciding that this boy had the maturity to babysit these kids. We need to look at each case as it comes and decide what to do with a child who commits a violent crime and see what can be done to keep him from becoming a violent adult.