Tuesday, Nov 25, 2014
Posted by maedel in “Meine Gedanken über Autismus”
Again and again I read about healing; about methods that are to help fighting autism. I read about it in articles, discussion forums, groups, or here in the comments.
A few days ago, someone commented here in the blog. At first I wanted to answer directly but I’ve changed my mind and I will devote him a separate blog.
Honestly, I am gradually getting so sick of the subject.
I will also release the comment and link here as soon as I finish this text.
That this issue is very controversial in part, is quite clear to me, and usually I have therefore held back on the subject, but I think it is time to clearly express what I think and how I see it.
At this point, it should be said that this reflects my own opinion and is a result of self-observation and my own research.
Basically, let me tell you that autism is incurable. At most, there can only be symptomatic improvements in some areas. Where improvement is the wrong word.
Autism is not a disease. It is not a cold that one gets to grips with proper diet, plenty of rest and nasal spray.
Autism is a different way of perceiving and processing, another thought structure, and especially: autism is innate.
One does not acquire autism like a disease. You do not become autistic, you are autistic.
Although clear symptoms often show only later – and I deliberately write “clear” –, it really existed from the beginning. Only: at first you can read everything possible into it, namely:
That the constant cries after too much stimuli (e.g. after walks, family parties, visiting, vacuuming, etc.) are rather an expression of a colic. Even if that lasts longer than only for a few months. Or that it is simply a case of a cryingy baby and nobody knows why.
That he does not really want to cuddle, that he is rather headstrong. The lack of social understanding … well, “he’s just so young”. Somewhere all infants are egoists and must learn it. They still have the baby bonus. Then, no one really says something or tries to give educational tips on how you can improve it.
Probably many a child has trouble with sleeping. Motorically, he’s just a bit clumsy.
Each infant actually plays by itself, and who is at that age who is not fascinated when something sparkles or rotates?
Especially with the first child, the child develops supposedly completely by normal standards, or maybe it is just a little lagging behind. Where can you compare that?
Often you can hear sayings like, “He’s just a late bloomer”, and should the development of language not be impaired, one will not notice it at first. And even then you will hear, “He is a boy who just needs more time.”
Even constant ear infections are welcome to justify so much.
The doctors and the checkups are unhelpful, because at that time I knew neither of autism nor of “real” child development.
I did not know that his game behavior is different, why should I mention it then. However, I was never asked about it.
Both of my boys fell through all grid in the checkups and even at different institutions, since these had rather fallen on the obvious things, such as speech impediment.
In this way, many children attract attention in retrospect, but how could I have known?
How could I have known that all these and many other individual signs “can” result in the overal picture of autism?
As long as you do not begin to research on your own and doctors, therapists, educators, teachers and many others mostly have a false picture of autism, you often are completely lost.
Is it any wonder then that you believe the many reasonsings?
Even as an adult I still have moments when the realization hits me like a slap in the face: “Oh, that is also part of autism?”
In early childhood autism you can often name it more accurately. With Aspergers, usually only when the children go to school.
My oldest one is a Kanner autistic, and the retarded development in his first 8 months to 1½ years was so visible that it could be recognized as such.
Why there, because it is the point in development where most tangible jumps are made?
Therefore, it was so to see not all too surprising that so many parents saw a connection between the first appearance of the signs and vaccinations.
The child begins to sit, stand up straight, to walk, eat, and some even speak already.
It is the time when children can achieve something by their own and therefore do not necessarily rely on the help of their parents. Some then observe a seemingly sudden withdrawal from caregivers.
Other autistic people, like my second-in-row, initially develop quite “normally” except for just a few quirks, and then have a sudden halt and in some cases regress.
Then again, there are autistics, pereferably Aspergers, who are hardly noticeable as long as the social structure ist not that demanding. Mostly during kindergarten age, but they are often misdiagnosed because it simply lacks the expertise.
No one can really be reproached for that, for enough professionals and a broad knowledge base are still lacking.
Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder that is mostly only noticed in the course of development. Why it exists is, however, innate.
The thing with the vaccination damage
Therefore it is not difficult to understand what I think about that persistent rumor that autism is caused by vaccination damages.
But let us start at the beginning.
Opponents of vaccination have been around as long as there are vaccinations. I do not want so much to discuss here the pros and cons and all the theories that are circulating now.
At this point, it should be said that I’ll not permit any comments about it in this blog. This topic has its countless own platforms and it should stay there.
I’m just wanting to touch a theory, anyway, that kindled really only with the study Andrew Wakefield published in 1998 in the renowned medical journal “The Lancet”.
Derived from the fact that early childhood autistic children show first clinical abnormalities by the period of 8 months to 1.5 years, these indeed are often perceived as a change but are usually diagnosed later as autism, he concluded, together with a mother of an autistic child, and the theory was that autism was caused by the vaccine, as this period coincides with the one in which the MMR vaccination is administered.
In the study of 12 autistic children 8 children were diagnosed with relevant intestine symptoms that, according to Wakefield, lead to developmental delays he later called autistic enterocolitis.
The causal link between autism and the MMR vaccine was however NEVER achieved. Even not in this study.
Through the publication a discussion second to none erupted that continues until today. In this case, all the following clinical studies on the genetics of autism are completely ignored, as are the later numerous studies that clearly refuted the involvement of vaccinations with autism.
But above all, the fact is completely ignored that 6 years later a journalist revealed that Wakefield “at the time of publication” got $ 55,000 from lawyers who searched for a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.
In the course of time the author of the study also came under suspicion of data fraud, which the different evaluators thought to be credible.
In 2004 the journal “The Lancet” withdrew the publication, and finally Wakefield had to justify himself to the British Medical Association, which then withdrew his license in 2010.
Nevertheless, the denial came too late. The damage had already been done.
And so children are still not even vaccinated and if so, very questionable methods are often used for discharging those pollutants from the body.
Be it through homeopathy, any hocus-pocus or even MMS.
The victims are clearly the autistic children, and I hope that Wakefield is only sorry what he has done.
Because as before, theories have grown around autism through vaccination damage, and always more and new conjectures are drawn up, especially in esoteric circles.
There are many arguments that logically seen are purely so harebrained that you would only like to think you lose your mind.
For example, the increase of autism is supposedly owed to the increasing number of vaccinations and not to the increasing awareness of autism itself.
That many of my generation are not vaccinated and are now diagnosed as autistic, well, it is not due to vaccination but to the amalgam in the mother.
Well, I’m not vaccinated and my parents had no amalgam in their mouth. Also, I grew up in an idyllic suburb where the pollution was relatively low, and I’m autistic.
In connection with the discharge of vaccines, there are often reports about various diets and that autism had been cured or had improved considerably.
Especially when MMS is administered, it is assumed in addition to the vaccine damage that autistic people have certain worms and internal parasites and this is to be etched away using MMS and a special diet by protocol. I had already reported elsewhere about that.
What they partly ask of the children, borders on assault.
The thing with the diet
I do not want to deny that a change in diet can sometimes help. As is also well known, e.g. a cocktail of omega-3 fatty acids and certain minerals can improve concentration in ADHD people a little bit.
Generally it can be said that every human being would do well with such a cocktail, but as an ADHD alternative remedy it is just sold at a higher price than the chemical bombs.
However, it only takes away the peak and can, in my opinion, hardly be compared with Ritalin & Co.
Where, however, in my opinion, they are going much too far, are those diets that omit important components of nutrition that these persons need for a normal development and a healthy growth.
Not without reason, such diets are prescribed to children only when indicated, really only in case of allergies and intolerances, and many of them only under medical supervision. Partly even in hospitals.
I think it’s dangerous to carry out something like that on their own at home, and even with autistic children who often have a limited eating behavior or where one can not correctly estimate the effect.
But I digress.
Therefore I have never claimed that it may not be quite helpful to feed oneself or the child in a healthy way.
So that promotes concentration, makes more alert and attentive, supports digestion and thus the overall well-being.
Why should it not work in case of autism? Just the same way as for other people, too?
But it does not wipe out autism.
To get back to the reason for my article, the commentator might even think that he “only” uses harmless things such as homeopathy.
Besides, even homeopathy is not without its side effects.
Much more than the desire itself to help, I am scared by the attitude that autism is to be done away; healed.
Somehow I can understand the desperation of many parents. I myself have autistic children and have probably similar questions as to their future and happiness.
But that is merely my own concern, is‘t it, and are the children at fault? Does it justify my desire to enable the best possible life for the children that I endanger their health in the long run? Should one not better aks how to support the child, rather than trying to change it?
And anyway, for whom do we do that actually?
Really for the child?
Is it perhaps rather the desire of many parents to make their child socially compliant? That it is no longer offended and is excluded, under the guise that you do not want to let the child suffer that? I understand you well, you mean really only well and want to spare your child from that. But is it the proper way?
For most people with autism are not even aware of it. At least not at that age.
Or is it more a question that you do not want to give up your dream as a parent?. The dream of a happy child who grows up to be an independent, popular and successful adults and who will have children himself?
Autistics learn that without any problems because several developmental steps will eventually take place anyhow, though delayed, but eventually they come and without all these agents and dietary changes.
Not for nothing very special attention is paid to the period around the 4th to 5th year of life even in adult diagnosis, because there the autism usually is least “distorted” by outside influences and learned things.
If you leave us autistics to some extent be the way we are, and explain the outside world, so that we might eventually learn to understand why something is required or expected this or another way , and the environment, ideally, is adapted to autistics, then all roads are open. Then we can decide how much power we are willing to spend in order to achieve certain things.
Even though it is perhaps to a lesser extent, it is a life worth living, because I then learned to be allowed to be myself.
This may also be suffering, to accept for the whole life that you are not good, not enough or false.
Is this not the goal that we should rather wish for our children?
That they may exist? Good and accepted, loved, just as they are?
Is that not better than to be socially compliant, broken, battered and exhausted from life itself?