New Autism Research

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Mordeci, Dec 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    Imagine being the parent of a young child who is not acting normally and being told by your doctor that your child has autism, that there is no known cause, and there is no known treatment except, perhaps, some behavioral therapy. That is exactly what Jackson's parents were told as their 22-month-old son regressed into the non-verbal psychic prison of social withdrawal, disconnection, and repetitive behaviors typical of autism.

    While we don't have all the answers, and more research is needed to identify and validate the causes and treatment of autism, there are new signs of hope. A study just published in The Journal of the American Medical Association by researchers from the University of California, Davis called "Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Autism" (i) discovered a profound and serious biological underpinning of autism -- an acquired loss of the ability to produce energy in the cells, damage to mitochondria (the energy factories in your cells), and an increase in oxidative stress (the same chemical reaction that causes cars to rust, apples to turn brown, fat to become rancid, and skin to wrinkle). These disturbances in energy metabolism were not due to genetic mutations, which is often seen in mitochondrial problems, but a condition the children studied acquired in utero or after birth.

    Bottom line, if brain cells cannot produce enough energy, and there is too much oxidative stress, then neurons don't fire, connections aren't made and the lights don't go on for these children. In fact, this problem of energy loss is found in most chronic disease and aging -- from diabetes to heart disease to dementia. Brain function and neurodevelopment in particular are highly dependent on energy.

    This is exactly the problem, I documented and found in Jackson when I first saw him. He had a profound loss of energy in his cells (particularly his brain cells), and indicators of severe oxidative stress. This is the same problem many other researchers have found in similar studies. (ii) Despite the evidence, most physicians don't test for mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress or other myriad factors commonly found in autistic children.

    Let's look more closely at what this new study in The Journal of the American Medical Association tells us about mitochondrial dysfunction, and how this may lead us to new methods of treatment -- methods similar to the ones I used to help reverse Jackson's autism.

    Autism: Brain Disorder or Body-Based Biological Illness?
    The big debate (iii) that ranges in autism circles is about whether or not autism is a fixed, irreversible brain-based genetic disorder, or a systemic, reversible body-based biological condition that has identifiable causes, measurable abnormalities, and treatable dysfunctions. In other words is autism a life sentence or a reversible condition?

    Many studies have illuminated the causes and possible treatments for autism, but mainstream physicians or scientists ignore most of this data. This new study, breaks new ground because it was published in one of the world's major medical journals.

    In it researchers from UC Davis examined children two to five years of age from the Childhood Autism Risk From Genes and Environment (CHARGE) study in California -- a population-based, case-control investigation with confirmed autism cases and age-matched, genetically unrelated, typically developing controls, that was launched in 2003 and is still ongoing. What they discovered was the aforementioned mitochondrial dysfunction that lead to problems with energy. Interestingly, these abnormalities were not found in neurons on a brain biopsy but from examining white blood cells called lymphocytes. This means the energy deficit was a systemic problem -- not one residing solely in the brain.

    This study forces the question: How do children acquire energy deficits that affect their whole system, not just the brain?

    The causes of mitochondrial dysfunction are well known, specifically as it relates to metabolism and the brain, and I have documented them in my books "UtraMetabolism" and "The UltraMind Solution." They include environmental toxins (iv) -- mercury, lead and persistent organic pollutants(v) -- latent infections, gluten and allergens (which trigger inflammation) sugar and processed foods,(vi) a nutrient-depleted diet(vii) and nutritional deficiencies.(viii) These are all potentially treatable and reversible causes of mitochondrial dysfunction that have been clearly documented.

    I found all these problems in Jackson, and over a period of two years we slowly unraveled and treated the underlying causes of his energy loss which included gut inflammation, mercury, and nutrient deficiencies. Over time, the tests for his mitochondrial function and oxidative stress (as well as levels of inflammation and nutrient status) all normalized. When they became normal, so did Jackson. He went from full-blown regressive autism to a normal, bright beautiful six-year-old boy.

    What it Means if Autism Can be Reversed
    This is just one story, but if autism can be reversed in one child, if there is any possibility of effective treatments or a potential cure, it forces us to ask critical questions: How did this happen? Can it happen in other children? What were the biological patterns found and how were they treated?

    The emotional and financial costs of autism for families and societies is staggering. Now one in five -- or 20 percent -- of children have some neurodevelopmental disorder. How can we sidestep our scientific and moral obligation and sit back and accept the limited resources allocated by the National Institutes of Health ($5.1 billion for cancer, but only $141 million for autism) and society as a whole.

    Most neurodevelopmental disorders have common roots. But looking at only one aspect of such conditions will not solve the problem of autism. Current autism research is based on an outdated approach -- one that is something like blind men examining the proverbial elephant. Each researcher works in his or her own silo examining different factors and coming to different conclusions. Research that integrates, synthesizes and examines all the data on causes and potential treatments is practically non-existent.

    The mitochondrial dysfunction identified in the JAMA study I've been talking about is ultimately only one downstream symptom of many upstream causes. Other researchers have found systemic inflammation,(ix) brain inflammation,(x) gut inflammation,(xi) elevated levels of toxins and metals, gluten and casein antibodies,(xii) nutrient deficiencies including omega-3 fats,(xiii) vitamin D,(xiv) zinc, and magnesium, and collections of metabolic dysfunction related to quirky genes that make it difficult to perform chemical reactions essential for health in the body such as methylation and sulfation.(xv)

    The take home message here is that the answer to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders will not be found in one of these factors, but in all of them taken together in varying degrees in each individual. There is no such thing as "autism." Rather there are "autisms" -- different patterns of biological dysfunction unique to each child that result in multiple insults to the brain that all manifest with symptoms we call autism.

    Future research must synthesize current data and design relevant whole systems research studies that don't focus on a single factor, but examine all the factors together. Then we must apply these findings in a comprehensive fashion, as is being done by many practitioners today who work in parallel -- rather than in collaboration with -- conventional approaches and often achieve remarkable results.

    I always have been intreasted in autism for my own reasons, I never saw quite this way of looking at it, it's intresting although I am a bit behind on the science, figured I would throw it out there anyway.
  2. IV2010

    IV2010 Well-Known Member

    that was interesting reading..
    I have an autistic grandson and I'll swear in a court of law that he became autistic after he had his immunizations as a baby..he was starting to talk, etc and then had a reaction to the needle and went downhill from there.
    I wish they'd do more research on this but doubt the governments are going to admit this as being the cause...imagine the law suits?
    thanks for sharing the article
  3. total eclipse

    total eclipse SF Friend Staff Alumni

    Thanks for the very interesting read wow if all kids with autism could be helped that way was a miracle for them and their parents
  4. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    I'll swear in a court of law that he became autistic after he had his immunizations as a baby..

    You'll be lucky if you get the chance - the medical industry or pharmaceutical companies will fight tooth and nail to NOT allow you that chance. It is crazy. In my case, I have a relative who was born in the 60s and he had what they called then a 'vaccine reaction' ---- he went from being a normal child to a severely brain-damaged child. He still is, whilst his sisters are high-flying bankers and his cousin a Mathematics professor at a top US University and his other cousin a nuclear-physicist at CERN .... and his father extremely bright, he remains at home, he manages to hold down a job at a factory which he has been doing for the last fourteen years and that gives him some independence... it is a shame but when it happened in the 60s - nobody sued or anything like that, it was just considered a crying shame, a mistake --- but it also wasn't denied either. No-one sat there and said it wasn't a reaction to the vaccine as they do NOW.

    I think this is one period in history that the medical profession will look back on with enormous shame. Enormous shame. Excepting the fact that pharma industry has no shame and really most people when everything finally comes to light will just say, well we would never have done that.... etc etc etc. as per usual.

    What I find absolutely shocking is clear dismissal that the medical profession will make, angrily and aggressively of any mother or parent documenting the changes that they noticed after the immunisation of their child. I am so very sorry for your child whose son developed this reaction and I hope she/he joins the various groups that are fighting for recognition of this adverse reaction in some children.

    The way I have always seen it is a bit like this (if I can use a slightly clumsy metaphor) --- you have ten children standing in a line and one of them is a haemophiliac, you go along and gently punch each child on the shoulder and only the haemophiliac comes up with a huge bruise .... so you, as the parent, go it was YOU punching him on the shoulder that caused that bruise - and the medical profession goes well, if that was the case then all the other children would have a bruise and they don't so it is clearly unconnected. BUT it is connected because if you hadn't punched the child on the shoulder no bruise would have manifested BUT the child also needed to be a haemophiliac to get that reaction. The vaccine acts as a catalyst to an inherent trait.

    Well, I don't know if that makes any sense but as we have a history of vaccine reaction in my family - my family has been fairly cautious and with some of cousins, my aunts have been more than happy to give the MMR and with others they simply haven't given it (but they have had to be sneaky about it - they simply didn't turn up to the initial appt and then 'forgot' to reschedule one, because if you say openly that you WON'T do it, then the hounds of hell are released against you!). So my one aunt, happily immunised her daughter who is as strong as an ox and healthy and hale and hearty and completely normal - and simply didn't immunise her son, who is slightly odd (sorta autistic/different/weird kid - lovely tho!) and not nearly as robust in his mental health.

    I find the whole situation so shameful. The fact that there are so many well-educated, normal parents out there - barristers, car mechanics, computer programmers you name it... who are suddenly dismissed as unthinking, hysterical idiots who have no capacity to say the truth or be honest about the reaction their child had after receiving the jab because they are 'over-emotional' about it. What a pile of horse- s***.

    Anyway, you got me on a rant spot!

    My little semi-autistic cousin is GREAT, he is just a joy and I put that all down to how amazing my aunt is. He started off with all the flappy hands, panic, unable to engage, hated to be touched, couldn't bear to look anyone in the eye (in fact simply didn't), didn't speak for the first two and half plus years not at all, no mummy or anything .... and yet slowly, slowly my aunt just has never pushed him, always been calm with him and slowly, slowly you can see him re-building all those connections that just weren't there --- it is almost as if he is developing outside the womb what most babies develop inside the womb (and it was a very problematic pregnancy - at one time the doctors told my aunt that the baby was dead!) and just with so much calm and so NO pressure, he is just slowly, slowly coming up to kinda scratch. He speaks! He is now very affectionate will come and hug. He looks you in the eye. No flappy-bird arm thing at all.

    He is still odd. I always forget it and think he is so normal that it is not noticeable but then I am with him and someone (a friend of mine perhaps) who hasn't met him before - and afterwards they say, "What's wrong with him?" But slowly, slowly he just is getting better and better and better. So it's great.

    I don't think it is the same for children who had the vaccine reaction because their connections were kinda 'cauterized' burnt off at the ends, whereas my nephews connections just weren't yet connected but given time they have just started to grow and make those bridges... (mind you, I think if he had been given the jab that would have been the straw that broke the camels back - and there would have been no route back for him).

    Anyway, I am going to stop with it all now, because on this subject I can go on for years!
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 12, 2010
  5. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Don't confuse correlation with causation.

    He probably also developed autism after breastfeeding ceased...

    Edit: Actually, based on this guy's research, stopping breastfeeding early may contribute! A child will be consuming a lot less processed and tainted food if human milk is a large part of the diet.

    And a polio epidemic is unimaginably horrible. The reason governments would cover up evidence (if it were to exist) that vaccines cause autism has nothing to do with lawsuits and everything to do with public health.

    Jim Carrey is one of the most dangerous people alive.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2010
  6. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Is that whole MMR thing going around? I really did figure it would die out, what with there being no corroborating evidence and the only study to find such a link being discredited after it was found the results were fabricated by a man who received nearly $500,000 from Lawyers making claims on behalf of autistic childrens parents.
    I guess thats too much to hope for.
  7. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    The rumours had started long before that study and will continue long after. Autism just happens to show up around the same time as vaccinations are done and that'll never change, but people need to realise that widespread neurological modifications can't occur in just a few weeks... well, barring surgery or injury.
  8. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

  9. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    Although I don't believe it is accurate to call it autistic. I wouldn't say that my cousin is autistic exactly.... he is brain-damaged and acts in a comparable way to an autistic person.

    The brain damage was caused by the inflammation in his brain as a reaction (an auto-immune reaction) to the vaccinations he was given in the 60s --- that is NOT the MMR btw. They never denied it in those days, they only deny it now because people are far more litigious and they don't want to HAVE to pay out.

    The lack of research into it is not just shocking, it is criminally negligent in my view. They could clearly start looking into WHY some children react and others don't --- if they did that, then they could probably find the cause and start screening children who are likely to react and thereby solve all the problems but of course they can't --- no-one will fund it, because if they fund that then they are indirectly admitting that ALL those parents are right and they simply don't want to have to pay out. Shocking - beyond shocking, shameful at the basest, most dreadful level.

    And all for ego and money.
  10. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Wikipedia tends to be more neutral than blogs, and in this case more accurate for undisputed facts.

    And I repeat, it's not money causing defensiveness, it's public health.
  11. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    And she is not the only one. I am glad there are some parents getting justice. Parents KNOW their children and you can clearly see a child deteriorate as fast as it does when it has had a brain inflammation.

    In a similar way (but not a denied way) if a child gets meningitis but survives, they also can develop severe learning difficulties (as well as deafness and all the rest).

    Anyway, I can rant on this for DAYS and DAYS. So it is probably best I leave the topic alone............ or my blood will start to boil, all over again. :)

    But for the original poster (the one whose grandson was affected) Robert Fletcher's (another successful case in court) mother has some sort of organisation called JABS or something and really, it might not be a bad idea for your son/daughter to get in contact.

    The trouble is some less confident parents will accept the doctor's insistence that it couldn't POSSIBLY be a reaction to the jab. That is the worst thing, because it stops the correlating evidence being produced...

    I have a similar story about a friend of mine who was put on an SSRI when they first came out, and when he came off it he had withdrawal symptoms, (brain zaps amongst others) and when he told his doctor - his doctor simply refused to believe or acknowledge it or report it, he said it was "psychosomatic" and it wasn't happening. Well, it took a good five or more years (but fortunately with the internet) with hundreds of thousands of unrelated people claiming exactly the same symptoms then the pharma companies FINALLY admitted that there could be "some" withdrawal symptoms from SSRIs ----

    Eventually, eventually the truth will out but what a shame, what a crying shame for all those affected families suffering now.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2010
  12. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Yes, they can see their child change quickly. What they can't do is separate correlation and causation, apparently - unvaccinated autistic children tend to start showing symptoms about the time vaccines would be given!
  13. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    No, I think you can easily tell the difference.

    If you take my own family and my little semi-autistic cousin. He was always different, from birth (and that is WHY my aunt chose not to vaccinate him) - all of these vaccine-damaged children were normal up until the vaccines. Many of them were speaking and then after having a reaction or fever from the vaccine they went backwards --- they lost speech, they lost the progress they had already made.

    Anyway, yada yada yada --- I HAVE to stop on this. Or I will go on and on - all night and all day. The truth will out eventually. And until that time, all parents can do is pretty much look after their damaged children the best they can and possibly try to press for research into the situation.

    In some ways, the best thing (for future children) is for the parents to say we WAIVE all threat of suing, we won't litigate - we promise not to litigate --- just allow the research into our children and the similar DNA characteristics that they hold (or whatever was the catalyst/trigger) and allow it to go ahead with no threat of suing govts or pharma --- so that screening can be set up for children with those defining characteristics, and they can be immunised in a different way that doesn't cause this reaction for them.

    Something like that, it is all ego. You need to counteract or somehow navigate around the medical professions ginormous ego to to find a crack to let this vital research happen ... sad but true.
  14. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Let's assume that autism IS potentially caused by vaccines:

    Would you rather have a million kids crippled or dead from polio, whooping cough, rubella, diphtheria, smallpox and tetanus or a handful of kids with learning disabilities?
  15. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Oh, and after lawsuits went through in the 80s over autism, nearly all manufacturers of the diptheria, whooping cough and tetanus vaccines stopped making them. Congress had to put a halt to the lawsuits or else hell would've broken loose.
  16. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    Sometimes for some people it's hard to win in this life.
  17. VCircle

    VCircle Active Member

    My son is autistic and is has fucked up my life. And my family's life and my marriage and the lives of his two siblings.

    I would give anything for him to be normal again.

    And yes, if i had my time again I would NOT vaccinate him. I haven't vaccinated my 3rd child because of it.

    Come live my life and then make a comment on whether vaccines or whatever causes autism. You might have a different point of view.
  18. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    As I said before...

  19. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    But does it have to be an either or scenario? If it was acknowledged that a small minority of children will have a reaction - then research could start into WHY and if you can isolate the reason, you might well be able to test or screen for that factor and either not immunise those children or find an alternative way to immunise them. For example, initially I was allergic to the tetanus vaccination and every time they did a tester jab I would massively react, my whole arm swelling up (from a baby onwards) and it was only in my twenties that they realised I was allergic to one component in the vaccine - and that wasn't the tetanus part..... so now I CAN have it, so all those times I wanted to do VSO etc overseas and they wouldn't accept me because I couldnt have that vaccination - in fact I could have done it.

    That's why it is so shameful be ause they are blocking research into the problem by denying there is a problem and therefore also denying the possibility of a solution. All because they don't want to dish out cash which will barely dent their pockets. A bit like the billions they have just fined BP - it sounds a massive amount but it is nothing to them, in fact. Pharma is the same, they have pots of cash but that's not even the point. Oh well, one day - one day.
  20. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    There already is plenty of research into alternative vaccination methods - some that may even allow for vaccines to decrease cancer risk - and the link between vaccines and autism is unproven. If you really feel like there is a link start a charity that offers cash prizes to any laboratory that can show a link.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.