On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Mary wrote:

> Isn't autism really just a kind of euphemism for vaccine and antibiotic
> damage? (except for a small percent of perhaps congenital cases of "true"
> brain damage)  My experience of talking to moms is that about 80% at least
> were vaccine and /or antibiotic injured.

Mary, while I personally do not doubt that the practices of
vaccination and antibiotic abuse have contributed to the autism
problem, you simply cannot make this kind of generalization.
Cases of autism are described in medical records going back to
the 18th century.  The term "autism" to describe them was used
by Kanner in 1943, based on his work in the late 1930s, also
prior to the age of vaccinations and antibiotics.

At the present time it is impossible to know how many cases of
autism are caused by vaccination or antibiotics.  Research in
this area is desperately needed.  Furthermore, many kids with
autism who look pretty bad at age 2-4 seem to get much better
during the ages 4-8.  I know of one parent in my area who was a
crusader for the gluten/casein-free diet, because his son
improved so dramatically after a year on the diet.  Then, with
great courage, he decided to test his conviction by allowing his
son to eat forbidden foods again.  Nothing happened.  His son
continued to improve.

It is hearbreakingly easy to see cause and effect even when it is
not happening, as Temple Grandin has often pointed out in her
lectures.  The frustrating fact is that we are all pretty much in
the dark.  We grope around and try things, and some of them seem
to work some of the time.  It's the best we can do.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]