Lorenzo's Oil for Autism

Post Reply New Topic

I read a journal article and spoke with several pediatricians about how Autistic children with digestive problems have a high incidence in presence of the Epstein-Barr Virus in their intestinal cells. Some think an EBV vaccine could help lower autism rates, and they have a theory about pre-natal and infant exposure to the virus. I wonder if altered EBV has ever been used as a vehicle for other vaccines?

Quite the puzzle, lots of halfway "proven" theories.

I don't think this is the right thread for me to go into the vaccine-autism possibility though.

pbcoll, I'm Joeker, not zendell...

Exactly my point; we don't know. Anything more than nothing is something. If vaccines cause even a thousandth, then that's still a cause. We don't know yet, but it might be right, like any other possibility. I look forward to that speculation, and the accompanying research to prove or disprove it. That's how we'll find out.

Science should not be restricted by decisions, made not through scientific research, but by being codified into law. Peer-reviewing is adequate. Having Judges determine a scientific matter legally, with no regards to scientific process, is an affront to all the scientists, who through experiment, proved a hypothesis thought to be rubbish and junk science. A prime example being that the world is round, not flat.

Even if vaccines aren't relevant in either of those ways, that a Judge ruled that they are so, is an affront to the very essence of science. It's a slap in the face of peer-review, an insult to those who research it, and a wrench in a specific gear in the scientific process. Like forbidding a writer from writing action stories. It's a close enough comparison.

zendell; It looks like there needs to be more research. Is the ruling in the Vaccine trials preventing it? I wonder why they would feel that neccesary...

In accordance with what TLPG wrote, I must offer up my opinion. There's just no way that all of Autism stems just from genes, and a trigger which will determine whether or not they're considered LFA or AS. They need more research.

I used to not care. Then I believed that it was genetic. After a while, I changed my mind, and my view. It's up to the science to make the links, to connect the dots. Until they can provide enough evidence for any points, they need more research. But look at me still talking while there's science to do.

Quite a lot of research, and it's all got to be done by someone. I hope that there's some new studies performed and then released soon.



TLPG, I don't think zendell is a kookaburra... In any case, I'll ask him to save me some gum.

You're the one who's denying all other evidence, and clinging to Genetics as the be all and end all. Has zendell denied the possibility of Autism having a genetic cause? No. He simply believes that not all cases of Autism stem from on singular, all-encompassing source. No other thing has but one cause; Look up causes of any disease, and there will be more than one wa to catch it(of course, not that Austism is a disease, simply a medical fact about any conditions).

The Cedillo case is a legal matter, not a scientific one, and the sooner that difference is sorted out, the better. Law is codified, settled, based on what people think is legal. Science is exploration, discovery, asking questions and finding answers.

You are making a very sweeping and all-encompassing assumption by declaring that it is the one and only cause for Autism, no matter what anyone else thinks.

pbcoll, if vaccines cause less than 20%, it's likely that the numbers are lost in the general room for error. If they account for one percent, even two, it will hardly make much of a difference overall, like a ten or twenty dollar bill makes a difference to a thousand dollar cheque. If it is a small percentage, then obviously it's not going to be noticable, is it?

If genetics accounts for as much as you believe, over sixty other causes will be hard to find in those numbers, and especially not if they're only examining one of sixty(statistically 0.33% percent of autistics), then it obviously will be difficult to find any of them in the first place.

gypsyRN, probably not. I think I may start a new thread... Warn everyone on the first post, and tell them not to post if they don't like any other theories but Genetics. Give open-minded individuals the chance to express their opinions. We can even make a disclaimer and everything. I'll probably do it tommorrow, I'm too tired tonight.

EDIT: After this post, I found this. I thought I'd add it for posterity, and for a bit of back-up evidence of the possibilities.

Joeker, the Cedillo case (like all cases before the Vaccine Court) relies on science to get a legal decision. One has to use science to prove vaccine damage. Medicine in this context is science.

And if I'm denying all other evidence - then so is the majority of the scientific community. And if they are they would have a good reason, and fully backed up and researched as far as needed. And by the same token - if I'm assuming, then so is the majority of said community. And they would NEVER assume. So they aren't - and I listen to them. I don't listen to junk science and those who propogate it.

And diseases spread entirely differently to genetic conditions, and have nothing to do with each other. The simple fact is if you don't have the gene - you can't be on the Spectrum. Adding stuff as Zendell is doing - and more importantly as the junk scientists are doing - only DELAYS the research. The very research you said was needed;

Exactly - and the sooner the genuine science is allowed to be done without these panic based distractions (thanks for nothing, Andrew Wakefield and the Geiers!) the better. Meanwhile, government should be doing their job and providing much more support for parents who are struggling and panicking and falling foul of this false junk thinking there's a cure around when there isn't one. The same applies to adults on the Spectrum. This is especially a problem in the United States where private insurance (which too many people can't afford) rules, but the lack of support does affect other countries as well. Including Australia, and in that case I'm doing my bit to do something about it, and quickly as the "cure" bug hasn't hit us yet.

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthr ... ?tid=12133

This would say quite a bit then, now wouldn't it?

Has the scientific community tried to quash all research other than genetics? Do all members of the scientific commnity accept the same thing? Has the scietific community flat-out denied any possibility of Autism, in any number of cases, cannot be caused by anything other than genetic inheritance? The majority of the scientific community believes that Autism is, in most cases, genetic. They have not exclusively denied any possibilities; That was the Judge.
Now tell me, how many causes does Diabetes have?

The "junk science" and the "propogaters" of said science, are members of the scientific community. Their science has been peer-reviewed, published, and is as vaild as any other scientific study to be published. Show that it is junk science, if you can. It meets all the requirements. If you can fund, run, track and complete a scientific study to disprove their findings, go right ahead.

If they don't have the gene, you can't tell. If they aren't autistic, they sure do act like it. If they aren't on the spectrum, because the spectrum is genetic, why protest the research that will cure those who, by your standards, are not autistic? Are you understanding me? Seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak; Those who you consider autistic, from those you don't.

If you understood the scientific method, you would not have said that. Junk science is not junk science, unless it's junk science. You only find out that it's wrong when you prove it wrong. You don't understand the scientifc method, or else you would know how foolish it is to make such glaring assumptions, especially when you've just said that the scientific community is assuming if you're assuming. They labelled germs, viruses, and vaccines as junk science, that nothing so small could be alive, that there was nothing that small, that germs couldn't keep you from getitng sick. Microscopes and Cow Pox sure changed that though.

Genuine science is properly done science, and barring a field of study due to a "majority rules" philosophy is hardly proper.

Joeker, the link you provided shows you are paying attention to the opinion of a Geier convert - David Kirby. A personal friend of Brad Handley, who is the founder of Generation Rescue. As if he knows what he's talking about! All he wants is for people to buy his book!

Anyway - he has stopped confirming the link (he got roasted for it by that imbecile Fore Sam) so there goes your argument!

No, the scientific community hasn't countered - because they are treating it as a passing fad and ignoring it in the hope that it will go away. I don't agree with that tactic - but that's what they are doing.

Most of the junk scientists are talking outside of their qualifications, or claim qualifications or positions that don't exist. The ones that aren't a part of that group do what Andrew Wakefield did - simple tests that were lazy and not checked and double checked and so on. Then they go to a paper and blab about the results for a quick buck (you want to talk about Pharma Shills for goodness sake!)

What I am protesting is the claim that those who in reality are not Autistic ARE. It greys up the whole issue and prevents true understanding of the Spectrum. THEY are the ones who (to use your vernacular) aren't seperating the wheat from the chaff. THEY are the ones who don't understand the scientific method - hence the quackery.

The genuine, properly done science in relation to Autism was done decades ago - starting with Kanner (unless one wants to link to Bleuler and Kraepolin - which I for one would support because it tells a more complete story) and progressing from there. To defy that outright without concrete evidence (which does not exist - all we have is heresay, innuendo and unsupportable theory) is just plain dumb.

Oh, I was just talking about the case. It's part of the Vaccine Trials, relying on science, so the fact that it was settled does show that not all of those cases are going to go in favor of the majority opinion.

That's not what they're doing at all; They're accepting it, but not letting it dictate that anything has changed. Most cases of Autism are genetic, but not all are. Does this mean the only "real" cancer is caused only by a genetic predisposition, and cancer caused by smoking isn't really cancer? I doubt it.

Prove to me that the studies being referenced are junk science. If you're so sure, let's see some evidence of it. Conduct it under the Scientific Method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Specifically, Reproducibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

It's not junk science because you say so. It will ony be so if you cannot repeat their experiment under identical conditions and prove their hypothesis wrong. Until you can, or another person does, and you provide the evidence of this, it is not junk.

That is a very narrow representation, and qualifed researchers are being lumped in with the few bad eggs. That is an insult to the peer-review process, and to any researcher who does not believe that something as complex as Autism stems entirely from one, and only one cause. It's up to the scientific community to peer-review and attempt reproducing experiments. If tey cannot actually prove that the science is junk, it's not junk.

Who are they? The Autistics who aren't autistic because of genes? I liken that to calling a smoker with cancer greying up cancer. They didn't get it because it's in their genes, but because they smoked, so they really don't have cancer? Something as diverse and complex as the Autistic Spectrum cannot possibly be caused by the same thing, for absolutely every autistic. And where do they defy Kanners hypotheses and experiments?

Bring forward some concrete evidence of this, please.