Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Autism typically sets in at a certain age. It is also an age at which certain vaccinations are given. Besides the correlation, there has, as yet, been no causal link provided. But your child, or grandchild, is put somewhat at risk despite their own vaccinations due to the presence of those without vaccinations. It is an emotional thing to have that happen to your child. But it does not prove anything. If autism tended to set in at about one year of age, then someone might suggest that the fact that most learn to walk then is the cause of the autism. We would laugh at them for saying that. But there is no more evidence that vaccinations are a cause of autism than any other natural milestone occurring at that time. Only a presumption that it is so. And once you believe it, you believe it.
|
I think the most recent studies have basically demonstrated, unequivocally, that there is no causal link between vaccinations at age 6 and autism. But here is the issue, you have no right to say what doesn't cause autism until you can say what does cause it. This is where the experts lost all credibility when they started telling people what didn't cause it even though they couldn't tell them what did.
As a result people experimented with many different things and had proven, though limited, success with diet. This was despite the fact they were told that "it is genetic" and that diet and environment didn't cause autism. As we now have a much better idea of what might cause autism we can say that in part that is right, diet and environment don't "cause" autism, the cause is genetic. But diet and environment can have a huge impact so that in a significant portion of those with autism the symptoms can be completely eliminated with a change in diet and environment. And in an even larger percent the symptoms can be alleviated though not eliminated.
Is it reasonable to look at all environmental factors including inoculations since the epidemic was traced to about the time that the inoculations were first given to kids, and also since symptoms often first appeared immediately after the inoculation was given? Sure, why not? Had the experts been on the leading edge of this research it could have been disproved before the hype caused many people to stop vaccinating. Once again the problem is not with the hypothesis or the research. The problem was with "experts" telling people what didn't cause Autism when they couldn't tell people what did.