It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....

Message Board

Posted by Have to disagree a bit-Grandma Peg on June 19, 2000 at 15:44:15:

In Reply to: onset time posted by Nawwaf on June 18, 2000 at 06:47:44:

: I believe that the term " Time of onset" should be time of discovering a child is autistic.
: When the development is short of the standard developmental milestone then we call it Time of onset.
: I believe that an autistic person is born that way.......and time of onset is the time we discover it.
: Mark

REMARKS; I have to disagree with that assessment a little for these reasons; the majority of kids now being labled as Autistic...aren't, they are autistiv-LIKE. As you've probably read, there is great controversy over what 'IT' realy is and what "IT' is 'caused by'. True Kanner's classic autism probably is present from birth, the developig baby in utero has had an interference during a crucial time that caused a lack of nueron and myelin development. Others have appeared affected at birth due to some complicaions of labor and birth. Many may have genetic defects, many more-today-may have genetic weaknesses which were activated after birth by some causitive agent...the 'triggering effect'. A good many may have No genetic abnormalities but have been damaged after birth by some causitive agent. Affectations may bear a similarity to the symptoms of autism, giving a commonality effect...causing a mis-diagnosis. If the Dr's took more time and tests when this baffling problem presents...or listened to the parents suspicions more...they might come up with a different name altogether. I believe the label NOS has that questionin inherent in it. ( All the med people KNOW that Many illnesses or disorders mimic autistic behaviors...which leads me to wonder where & how some of these Dr's got their diplomas..). Dr. Goldberg has the theory that these kids of today have had a virus...origin unspecified- passed to them and treats on that basis. Other Dr's have suspected some damage done by something in the vaccines and treat on that basis. Some sates automatically inject newborns with vax's therefor the time element would be out of sync with pinpointing. The vax theory suggests that some react to live virus used, some react to an accumulation of heavy metals used as preservatives in vaccines and some react only after damage has been done in the bowel, brain, CNS and yeast and/or bacterial infections take over because that damage weakened or destroyed the bowel protective lining. So the rates of decline vary due to the resistance variations of individuals. So 'on-set' time is going to vary. However, as the med. profession has often pointed out, the time of most autistic on-set is 16 to 18 months and just HAPPENS to be at the same time of vax administering. The DAN Dr's and others following Dr. Goldberg state POSITIVELY that there IS an the thalidimide epidemic...and one thing is certain...Genetic disorders Do NOT cause Epidemics, no way they can. So the problem with on-set time setting may be that it's too varied and may differ greatly from a genetically caused classic autism which may be observed from the moment of birth or at a genetic screening very early on. So time of on-set and time of discovery-diagnosis- wil also vary in
this symptomatic type some now call autism. Sorry I've rattled on so. I think you may be as troubled by the time factor as the rest of us are, just tried to remind everyone of what has been published so far. God Bless, Grandma Peg

Follow Ups

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10 AM.

Site owned and operated by HealthBoards.comô
Terms of Use © 1998-2018 HealthBoards.comô All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!