Lorenzo's Oil for Autism

Post Reply New Topic

Merle, I'm assured.
My apologies for any rudeness towads you(unintentional, though it's still rude) on my part, and I look forward to future discussions with you.

Wolfpup: That's why we need more research into it. However, when you can make much more from compounds that only you can make, it's much more lucrative. I'd like to see a little more emphasis on whether or not they actually work, and not on a 50-200 dollar perscription.

Exorcism is not the same as an alternative treatment, any more than corporal punishment is to parenting. Alternative treatments aren't all the same anymore than all pills are the same. If someone tried to replace Ritalin with Aspirin, it'd be just as silly.

You'd find that not every alternative is a science-fearing con. Several alternative treatments have undergone scientific study, and found to be effective. Most notably, vaccination. It was THE alternative treatment, the unknown. People scoffed, and laughed, and jeered, it was considered quackery, and until he proved that it prevented what they were vaccinated for, he was a laughingstock and had no credibility in any scientific circles. Afterwards, i was touted as one of the mst important discoveries of that century.

Billions? You must be mistaking industries. The Health industry(that which runs hospitals), and the Pharmaceutical companies(that make drugs), are the ones who rake in the billions.

pbcoll: I admit, I omitted that evidence by accident. My apologies. However, my point remains, in that it's about 80%, then what's the other 20%?

I could quote the person who said it, but I won't bother. Suffice to say, they dismissed Zendell on the grounds that Autism is genetic, and therefore cannot be anything else. I am certain you don't mean to support that kind of statement, and I am dropping it. *I thusly, with much ado, drop it.*

But Science is supposed to be flexible. It's not reliant on something like the Vaccine Trials to determine the possibilities of the causes for Autism. There's no real problem with the fact that there is a belief that Vaccines caused Autism, as they are peer-reviewed, and if they are not adequate, they are not valid. Hypothetically; If in the future, vaccines are found to have any effect in causing Autism, if even but less than in one percent of all cases, then the legal ruling would likely cause problems. Peer-reviewed science is the Court of science. What was so wrong with that, when the majority of peer-reviewed science states that Autism is mainly genetic, and that there's little to no evidence that Vaccines cause Autism.

Sarcasm is unbecoming of you.

srivv345: Alternative does not simply equal Chelation. Not all therapies are Chelation, like not all pills are Aspirin.

Open: Perhaps it could be done free of charge, in the interest of public health? Maybe those hundred of companies could chip in money for those extensive tests, and then agree to use a label to show that their products are compliant with regulations for testing, are approved by the organization who performed the tests, and are certified by whichever organization is in charge. Were I to be acting in the interest of health, I'd exhaust every possible option. Test every possible thing to determine if it's of use. Just my opinion.

Junk science is not proof. Where is the proof from those who previously stated that Autism is genetic at it's root changing their mind? Nowhere - because those who know the truth have not changed their view.

You are relying on personal belief - and have no GENUINE science (as opposed to junk) to back you up.



No, environmentally caused conditions have NOTHING to do with genetics. Since when did genetics cause AIDS, Influenza or the measles for example?



Now that is garbage! Lung cancer caused by smoking has NOTHING to do with genetics.



Most of the most recent research that you are so keen on IS junk science. The reason it's in the majority at the moment is because there are people keen to take advantage of the panic provided by parents who need support and aren't getting it - especially in the US. The genuine science is already there - and the majority of the scientific community is silent on the matter because as far as they are concerned the matter has been already dealt with (ie Autism is genetic in origin).

I fully expect the cases that are giving off Autistic symptoms but are not Autism to be exposed, and bang will go your environmental theories (and that of the junk scientists).



Which in my opinion makes you a health hazard.

One more note - Joeker is correct about the increase in cancer being led by smoking, but there are also other factors. Men being a little less proud about testicular and prostrate cancer leads to an increase in DX and early treatment (as a T cancer survivor myself I know all about that). There is also skin cancer due to an increased tendency towards exposing more skin to the sun. That's probably a bigger problem in AUstralia than anywhere else because of our climate and love of the beach - but it exists in other countries as well.

Smoking however is the worst.

It is not known precisely what the remaining 20% is - the vaccines hypothesis has been looked at and discarded. The evidence is that vaccines are not related to autism. It is hypotheically posible that one day there will be evidence that in a very small subset of cases vaccines have something to do with that 20%, but at this stage that is pure speculation - one could equally speculate that in a very small subset of cases vaccines help prevent autism, but the evidence is that they're not relevant either way.

A few poor quality studies found no link between thimerosal and autism (although others including someone from the CDC found a link). Even the studies that couldn't find a link stated that a link couldn't be ruled out and that more research is needed. That is NOT evidence that vaccines are unrelated to autism. It's not good to discard a hypothesis based on junk science.

One researcher found evidence of stealth virus infections in 80% of autistics with the virus coming from African green monkey's used to make vaccines. No one has done a single study to refute this. A few government-sponsored studies that concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a link between thimerosal and autism but it couldn't be ruled out means next to nothing. There are 50 others reasons why vaccine may contribute to autism.

I'm NOT saying that vaccines cause autism or are related to it. All I'm saying is that many parents report their children becoming autistic shortly after the DPT or MMR vaccines and no one has seriously studied it. It is way too early to discard the vaccine hypothesis. These parents and their children are owed an explanation and deserve valid, high quality studies to look into it. I will reject a vaccine connection when/if the scientific evidence is sufficient to reject a link.

TLPG, I'm not sure it's worth replying to you. It's the same thing over and over with you.

Science you disagree with = junk science
Science you agree with = genuine science

I used to believe I was autistic due to genetics. After examining the evidence, I now believe that non-genetic factors (in addition to genetics) are involved.



Really? A recent scientific study in the American Journal of Human Genetics "found strong evidence that a lung cancer susceptibility gene or genes is co-inherited with a genetic marker on chromosome 6." They also "found that in non-carriers, the more they smoked, the greater their risk of cancer. In carriers, on the other hand, any amount of smoking increased lung cancer risk. These findings suggest that smoking even a small amount can lead to cancer for individuals with inherited susceptibility." "The discovery of genes for other types of cancer has led to better understanding of those diseases, which in turn can lead to better strategies for treatment and prevention. We hope that uncovering a gene or genes responsible for lung cancer will do the same for this devastating disease," said co-lead author Joan Bailey-Wilson, Ph.D., NHGRI." http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressr ... ancerlocus

Genetics also play a role in heart disease: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news ... RSS_PUBLIC

Genetics influence susceptibility to cancer, heart disease, and autism. Why blame the genes on autism but blame the environmental factors when it comes to cancer and heart disease since all are likely caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors?



Autism is diagnosed based on behavioral symptoms, similar to depression. I think most experts agree that there are many non-genetic causes of autism.

This isn't about what I agree with. It's what the qualified scientific community says - and the majority say the same thing I do (or would if they weren't treating the junk science as a passing fad and consequently ignoring it!).



I was referring to the scientific community, not the layman like yourself.

Clearly there's no point talking to you. You've been sucked in by the junk scientists because they're saying stuff you want to hear. You're going to be up the proverbial gum tree without a paddle in the not so distant future when your precious views are completely destroyed by the exposure of the junk science - the very material you hold dear.

There is NO environmental cause of Autism. Anything that is cured was never Autism to begin with - and the sooner the difference is sorted out the better. The Cedillo case may in fact be a crucial key to that.

Autism is genetic at it's root - and that's my final word on the matter. I take the word of established fact, and I do so confidently despite no qualifications. And the fact is - you have no more qualifications than I have, so if you are happy to throw off my view as uneducated - that's fine with me. Just put that on yourself as well because if my view is un-educated, then so is yours.

The biggest 'study' is that whole countries have eliminated thimerosal and their rates of diagnosed autism have continued to rise. If thimerosal were a factor, the rate would have to drop as it was removed. Likewise, vaccination rates are stable or even falling in developed countries, so a rise in the rates of diagnosed autism cannot be explained by overall vaccination rates. Such blatant lack of a correlation is very large populations would seem very convincing to me.
Good studies have been carried out for MMR specifically, and concluded that there is no correlation between autism and MMR.
The study you mention about viruses - have the results been reproduced?
Autism symptoms are usually first noticed in early childhood, in vaccinated and unvaccinated children - in the vaccinated ones, statistically there is going to be some fraction of cases in which it is going to happen fairly shortly after one childhood vaccine or other. That does not mean cause and effect, especially if a shot causes a meltdown due to sensory issues. Parents are just about the least objective observers possible, and vaccines give them something to blame. In some societies it would be the evil eye or demonic possession that would be blamed.

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.