|
Common Ground… In order to understand the discussion in this text, I wanted to ensure that all readers had a “common ground” in terms of the basic understandings I had discussed in previous books. I believed there were many, many issues that played into autism. In my opinion, based on the University of Calgary experiment showing neural degeneration due to mercury exposure, there simply could be no denying that mercury played a definite role in autism. This video had clearly indicated that within about 40 minutes after exposure to mercury, neurons in this experiment shrank to approximately half their original size, completely devastated and stripped of their outer coating by the mercury and then, according to the scientists, these neurons went on to form neurofibrillary tangles (a “hallmark” of Alzheimer’s). Furthermore, the scientists explained that future growth from affected neurons was also significantly impaired. This, of course, fit very much in line with my belief that in children with autism, there was little or no communication among the various parts of the brain. In my opinion, based on what I had come to see in my own son and from what I had come to understand of brain structure and function, it truly appeared connections within the major parts of the brain had simply been “severed” or destroyed. I strongly encouraged all parents of children with autism to find a way to view this video. It was truly an eye opener! The video showing neural degeneration as a result of mercury exposure could be viewed online by going directly to the following site: http://movies.commons.ucalgary.ca/showcase/curtains.php?src=/mercury/Lor2_QTS_300kb_QD.mov&screenwidth=320&screenheight=256 or at http://www.iaomt.org. A link to this video was also provided on my website.
The result of this experiment were published in the following: Leong CCW, Naweed IS, Lorscheiderae FL, Retrograde degeneration of neurite membrane structural integrity of nerve growth cones following in vitro exposure to mercury, published in NeuroReport Volume 12, Number 4, 26th of March 2001, pages: 0733-0737.
Those interested in reading more on this subject could also do so by going to: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~gauntlet/eg/news/stories/20010329/news05.html The body had a difficult time getting rid of mercury – a substance known to lodge in the brain and other major organs. Mercury, once in major organs like the brain, had a half-life of 20 years, meaning that it would take twenty years for half of the molecules to decay. Once it entered the body, it was pretty well there to stay – there to create more damage - given the body had no good way to get rid of this toxin. Although thimerosal (mercury) had been used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s, it was only in 1999 that the FDA was forced by a Congressional mandate to disclose how much mercury there really was in vaccines. Upon mercury content information being disclosed, needless to say, many parents, professionals and government personnel alike became, justifiably, gravely concerned over the fact that for years infants had been routinely given 25 to 50 times more mercury than considered safe by US Environment Protection Agency standards. Government officials, scientists and parents were now realizing that by age two, children, via vaccinations, could have been exposed to up to100 times what had been considered safe levels of mercury by the EPA. Although publicly, the CDC continued to state there was no link between vaccines and neurological disorders, behind closed-door meetings, discussions from top members of the CDC and others involved in vaccination programs clearly indicated otherwise. “If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.” Adolf Hitler So many times, in trying to understand “issues of autism” I had come to the realization that – often – the answer was not in “what was there” – but, “in what had been missing”. If there were some pieces to this puzzle that had been missing, certainly, the “Simpsonwood meeting” had helped to provide some of those pieces. Information from the Simpsonwood meeting was supposed to have been released to the public over three years ago. In this meeting, the CDC clearly acknowledged it knew for a fact it had a problem with thimerosal/vaccines and neurodegeneration… and yet, to this day, the CDC’s public stance was that “there existed no proof of any link between the two”. All parents saw from the CDC – was denial – and now, with parents having the CDC Simpsonwood meeting transcripts in hand – there could be no denying that this denial was in actuality more than simple denial – it now amounted, quite frankly – to lies! Below were but a few quotes from a meeting now known in the autism community as “The Simpsonwood Meeting” – a meeting convened by the CDC to discuss matters of mercury as they related to vaccines. Approximately fifty (50) persons attended this meeting, including Walter Orenstein, M.D. CDC’s Director, National Immunization Program. A copy of this report, now well circulated in the autism community, was available on many autism related websites, including mine. This report had been given to two groups – the organization of the US Autism Ambassador, Autism Awakening (http://www.autismawakening.com), as well as the organization known as SafeMinds (http://www.safeminds.org/). Upon reading this report, the US Autism Ambassador, LD Wedewer, immediately determined this report’s contents justified providing this information to Dan Burton and The Committee For Government Reform as official, written testimony submitted on behalf of the public for the December 10th, 2002 Government Reform Hearings on vaccinations. As such, this report was now considered “public record” and it certainly had become a well-discussed issue in the autism community. Dr. Weil, pg. 24: “One, up until this last discussion we have been talking about chronic exposure. I think it’s clear to me anyway that we are talking about a problem that is probably more related to bolus acute exposures, and we also need to know that the migration problems and some of the other developmental problems in the central nervous system go on for quite a period after birth. But from all of the other studies of toxic substances, the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these effects, so that moving from one month or one day of birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity. There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.” “The second point I could make is that in relationship to aluminum, being a nephrologist for a long time, the potential for aluminum and central nervous system toxicity was established by dialysis data. To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.” Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 40: “…we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders." Dr. Bernier, pg. 113: "We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information, so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information. Note: If this information was supposed to be released to the public three years ago, where was it? To my knowledge, all we saw from the CDC, to this day, was denial when it came to any link relating to vaccines and neurological damage! Dr. Keller, pgs. 116 & 118: "…we know the developing neurologic system is more sensitive than one that is fully developed…" Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 161: "Personally, I have three hypotheses. My first hypothesis is it is parental bias. The children that are more likely to be vaccinated are more likely to be picked and diagnosed. Second hypothesis, I don't know. There is a bias that I have not recognized, and nobody has yet told me about it. Third hypothesis. It's true, it's Thimerosal. Those are my hypotheses." Note: In other words, what this was saying was 1) statistics are skewed and so, this was “really not a problem”, the issue was simply one of “skewed statistics” – implying parents were making the problem appear “bigger than it really was” and so, parents “made it up” 2) either we at the CDC made it up, or 3) it’s true - it is thimerosal. Well, as a parent of a child with autism, all I could say was good luck proving hypothesis 1) or 2) – and, that, appeared to leave only hypothesis 3). Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 162: "When I saw this, and I went back through the literature, I was actually stunned by what I saw because I thought it is plausible. First of all there is the Faeroe study, which I think people have dismissed too easily, and there is a new article in the same Journal that was presented here, the Journal of Pediatrics, where they have looked at PCB. They have looked at other contaminants in seafood and they have adjusted for that, and still mercury comes out. That is one point. Another point is that in many of the studies with animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals were exposed. Now, I don't know how much you can extrapolate that from animals to humans, but that tells me mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury. There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury. On top of that, I think that we cannot so easily compare the U.S. population to Faeroe or Seychelles populations. We have different mean levels of exposure. We are comparing high to high I the Seychelles, high to high in the Faeroe and low to low in the U.S., so I am not sure how easily you can transpose one finding to another one. So basically to me that leaves all the options open, and that means I can not exclude such a possible effect." This next comment was my personal favorite… Dr. Johnson, pg. 198: "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available. I do not believe the diagnoses justifies compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point. I deal with causality, it seems pretty clear to me that the data are not sufficient one way or the other. My gut feeling? It worries me enough. Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out a eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines." Note: This comment included “this association” – as such, this doctor was clearly acknowledging his personal belief that there indeed existed “an association” based on the data presented. What this was telling me was that persons who were privy to this information were choosing not to have their “lineage” immunized with these mercury-laced vaccines, but they were perfectly fine with allowing my child – and thousands more each day - to get those mercury-laced immunizations in spite of their concerns with “this association”. Dr. Weil, pg. 207: "The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant. The positive relationships are those that one might expect from the Faroe Islands studies. They are also related to those data we do have on experimental animal data and similar to the neurodevelopmental tox data on other substances, so that I think you can't accept that this is out of the ordinary. It isn't out of the ordinary." In other words… “Houston… we have a problem!”… or should that be “Washington… we have a problem”… but, it looked like they “already very much knew that”! Dr. Weil, pg. 208: "The rise in the frequency of neurobehavioral disorders whether it is ascertainment or real, is not too bad. It is much too graphic. We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." In other words… you can not explain these statistics by “genetics”! Dr. Caserta, pg. 234: "One of the things I learned at the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico that was tied into the metal lines in biology and medicine that I never really understood before, is the interactive effect of different metals when they are together in the same organism. It is not the same as when they are alone, and I think it would be foolish for us not to include aluminum as part of our thinking with this." Given aluminum was a known gene mutant, I, too, would very much agree with that statement! Note that both aluminum and formaldehyde were both known to impact cell development and as such, they were both known gene mutants – and both – were very much found in vaccines! As I had stated time and time again, it certainly seemed to me that if you put known gene mutants in vaccines, you should expect to see mutations! Perhaps science experienced so much difficulty “moving forward” in terms of medicine because mutations we were finding were being caused by such “gene mutants” as opposed to by the disorders themselves. Could that possibly explain why so many of the mutations we found in medicine still did not appear to provide “the answers” science needed to move forward in solving so many medical mysteries and why in spite of mutations found, the cause to so many disorders was often still listed as “cause unknown”! Dr. Clements, pg 247- 249: "I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which was the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted, and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes." What this appeared to be saying was that persons involved in vaccination programs had to be very careful not to do studies that would prove parents were correct – after all, it appeared “outcomes could have been predicted”. How very interesting indeed! Dr. Clements, pg 247- 249 continued: " I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic. The ACIP is going to depend on comments from this group in order to move forward into policy, and I have been advised that whatever I say should not move into the policy area because that is not the point of this meeting. But nonetheless, we know from many experiences in history that the pure scientist has done research because of pure science. But that pure science has resulted in splitting the atom or some other process which is completely beyond the power of the scientists who did the research to control it. And what we have here is people who have, for every best reason in the world, pursued a direction of research. But there is not the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work that has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say." This next comment was another one of my favorites… the old “I have objectives to meet so let me proceed blindly even though there are concerns here”! Dr. Clements, pg 247- 249 continued: "My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day the 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe." "So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations. My message would be that any other study, and I like the study that has just been described here very much. I think it makes a lot of sense, but it has to be thought through. What are the potential outcomes and how will you handle it? How will it be presented to a public and media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they in store for them?" Again, this appeared to be saying, “let us be very careful of what studies we do because they certainly could come back to bite us”! Dr. Clements, pg 247- 249 continued: "…but I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here." Given that now, millions of parents were realizing they had been lied to by the CDC – for at least three years now given the date of this meeting (early June 2000) – and that quite obviously, the CDC knew immature systems were vulnerable to neurological damage from vaccines and yet, no recall of these mercury-laced vaccines occurred and hence, thousands more now faced life with neurological disorders – this certainly was another comment I also agreed with! The problem appeared to be that we had all simply assumed studies had been done to look into the issue of safety of mercury in vaccines. Yet, once again, the facts showed otherwise. Indeed, in the Government Reform Hearings headed by Congressman Dan Burton, in June of 2002, the public discovered that in over eighty years, not once had the government studied the safety of mercury in vaccinations! This was now a matter of public record – a known fact! Most studies for vaccines lasted but a few days to a few weeks - at best. Indeed, the new 5 in 1 vaccine for infants had been approved by the FDA based on 30-day studies only, according to FDA transcripts. Note that Dr. Wakefield had raised concerns over the possible interaction of just three (3) viruses in one vaccine – the MMR - and now, children would be given five (5) at once! As I investigated the issue of thimerosal and vaccines and went over the CDC’s transcript that had been generated as a result of the “Simpsonwood Meeting in June of 2000”, something else became very, very troubling for me as I carefully went over those “meeting notes”. As I read the complete transcript of the Simpsonwood meeting, discussing the CDC thimerosal study done by Verstraeten, Davis and DeStefano that resulted in the document entitled: Thimerosal VSD Study - Phase I, and having taken at least the basics in statistics, there was something that very much stood out for me when it came to the CDC study looking at the possible link between vaccines and neurodegeneration. That "something" was the fact that the population sample used clearly was NOT even close to being representative of children who would have been exposed to vaccines and in all likelihood have gone on to develop autism. Let me explain the reasons for which, in my opinion, the Thimerosal study by Verstraeten, Davis and DeStefano that resulted in the document entitled: Thimerosal VSD Study - Phase I, used a population that I could only describe as "white washed" and therefore, truly not a good sample to capture the true extent of the potential problem with vaccines. The database used was a computerized database that looked at billing data provided by HMOs., etc. I knew that in my personal case, this would never have captured my son in the population sample. From what I could understand of this report, it very much looked like billing codes were the primary thing looked at, as were "diagnosis" for things such as ADHD, etc. In the case of my son, I had taken him to a pediatrician for an initial assessment - and only a notation was made in his records that he showed signs of autism. There was obviously nothing in the billing that would have indicated that his visit to the pediatrician in early April of 2000 was to discuss the possibility of autism with a pediatrician. The reason I knew that for a fact was because Blue Cross Blue Shield ended up calling my husband and I to find out “what that visit was for”. We had just left corporate America and had also applied for our own insurance via Blue Cross Blue Shield - apart from our employer - and therefore, BCBS wanted to know "the specifics" about this visit for Zachary - as it could very much impact their willingness to insure us - and clearly it did. We had applied for insurance almost six weeks earlier. The normal process was supposed to take approximately two weeks. It had taken close to six weeks because “they were behind” – so we were told. When I honestly told BCBS that this was a visit to a pediatrician because I suspected autism in my son, within two days, we received the final answer to our request for personal insurance - they could cover everyone - except Zachary! We replied "thanks, but no thanks" ... This experience certainly demonstrated several things as they related to the thimerosal study. 1. Given "billing data" was used, I very much suspected persons without medical insurance would not have even shown up in “the data" or “population sample” as no data would have gone to an HMO, etc. for billing purposes. It was estimated that 11 - 12% of children in the US did not have health insurance according to US Census data: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/cb02-127.html. 2. Unless the billing information provided "something" to indicate the problem was autism or an autism spectrum disorder, again, that information would have been missed. In my case, that would definitely have been true since the doctor had simply put a "hand-written notation" in Zachary's records, and the insurer had to call to find out “what the visit was for” in the first place. But, there were other reasons for which this population sample, in my opinion, could very, very much underestimate the scope of the problem. The data used looked at billing codes. It looked at billing data. Billing data was just that... billing data... and often, it was inaccurate. Having worked with databases in the past, I knew how often codes were simply wrong and/or inaccurate. The simple fact was that “billing” was to “receive funds due” and if a computer did not accept a particular code, often another code resulting in “the same expense” could often be used. Likewise, if a person did not “remember” the correct code, but remembered another “kind of similar” code in terms of the impact to billing, again, that “kind of similar code” could be used. Computers and humans were not infallible, but humans, it seemed, always found “ways around” such problems in order to get “the job done” – in this case “billing” – with the goal being the receipt of a specific number of dollars. You simply could not, in my opinion, use a database intended for billing to determine the impact of vaccines on children. These data were not intended for such a study and as such, in my opinion, that in itself, provided for many, many issues in terms of the accuracy of the data itself! 3. Particularly troubling to me, however, was what I saw as "white washing of the population sample" via the automatic elimination from the study of specific children. Clearly, over 25% of the probable sample was eliminated from the study. Page 34 of the Simpsonwood meeting transcripts states: "... there was quite a large group, about 25%, that we excluded because of congenital or perinatal disorders..." The fact that 25% of children appear to experience and/or be born with "some kind of problem" in this nation should be reason enough for concern in my opinion. Add that 25% to the 12% or so of children known to be uninsured, and clearly, close to 37% of the "real life" population sample was missing from this study - and those "left over" – could certainly be considered among the "healthiest" in terms of “who” was allowed to participate in the study - hardly representative of the US population given this study itself clearly indicated that 25% of children had some type of problem very early on – problems that certainly could make them more susceptible to vaccine injury! Clearly, 37% of children were not exempted from vaccines – so, why exclude them from this study? Again, according to this transcript, "congenital disorders" were excluded. That would have excluded children who had disorders such as Downs Syndrome. Yet a dual diagnosis of DS and autism was "no longer rare" according to work done at the Cleveland Clinic and also as evidenced by the fact that the “dual diagnosis” was discussed as an agenda item at the National Downs Syndrome Society conferences, both past and present. Bonnie Patterson was but one person now addressing this issue and discussing it at this conference on Downs Syndrome http://www.ndss.org/ndssmedia/pdf/Conference_brochure.pdf. "Perinatal medicine" as defined by an online dictionary was the period started from week 28 in gestation to day 28 after birth - I quote: "The branch of medicine dealing with the foetus and infant during the perinatal period. The perinatal period begins with the twenty-eighth week of gestation and ends twenty-eight days after birth. " http://www.books.md/P/dic/perinatalmedicine.php. I can not help but ask: Why had those doing this study “gone back to week 28 of gestation and excluded any child who experienced a problem during pregnancy? Could it be because these children were perhaps most "at risk" for autism and given the CDC really did not want to see "a link", they chose to exclude as many "risks" as possible that would show a link between autism and vaccines? Why would a study looking at the effects of thimerosal go back to week 28 of gestation in determining who would or would not be included in the population sample? Week 28 was a critical point in pregnancy... that was when mothers could show signs of gestational diabetes, Rh factor incompatibility, etc. As such, any child of a mother who would have experienced gestational diabetes, or Rh factor incompatibility, any child born with “a problem” or experiencing “a problem during pregnancy” could have been excluded from this study. Note that mothers who experienced Rh factor incompatibility were given a shot at week 28 of gestation (and a shot shortly after the child’s birth) – a Rhogam shot – a shot – laced with mercury! If these mothers were excluded from this study, in my opinion, this amounted to another “white washing” of the population sample. Likewise, if indeed children of mothers with gestational diabetes had been excluded, I also had serious concerns with this. My son, I knew, was born “low on glucose” and had to be given that “special little glucose bottle” at birth. This had been a clear sign of a problem from day one! Mercury was known to impact hormones… and insulin… certainly was a hormone. Insulin was a hormone very much involved in lung development (as explained in book 3) and indeed children of mothers with gestational diabetes were now known to have delays in lung development. Likewise, these children were also known to have a delay in the switch from “alpha-gamma” to “alpha-beta” blood – a switch that normally happened – at week 28 of gestation. Given this switch had to do with the “globin” part of the hemoglobin (blood) and globin was very much a function of the immune system, that, to me, indicated these children could be among the most susceptible to vaccine injury given their even more immature immune system. For more on this issue, I strongly encouraged all parents to read “book 3” entitled Breaking The Code: Putting Pieces In Place! This book was posted in full on my website. Children with “breathing problems” had also been excluded from the study. Yet, again, science had clearly shown that children of mothers with gestational diabetes showed delays in lung development. Of course, given “the blood” and “the lungs” were so closely linked in terms of oxygen exchange, it was not surprising to me to discover that along with the delay in the switch from “alpha-gamma” to “alpha-beta” blood, there was also a delay in lung development in children of mothers with “gestational diabetes”. Note that I had, personally, not been diagnosed as having “gestational diabetes”. Could I have been a “borderline case”? I had no way of knowing. Yet, the one thing I knew without a doubt was that my son was born with insulin problems and that insulin very much impacted lung development and the immune system when it came to “the blood” and “lungs” of my child. Insulin was also very much tied to the digestive process. Note also another interesting comment... I quote: ... "the heavier babies in this cohort are more likely to have the outcome, and that is statistically significant..." (p.46 of Simpsonwood transcript). That was very interesting to me... heavier babies... hum… Was an insulin problem at play here? My son was very, very heavy/big... always "off the growth charts"... he constantly wanted to eat... so much so, that this was very much discussed with his pediatrician and noted in his chart. Indeed, my pediatrician used to refer to Zachary as - "the moose" – whenever he saw him. That had always irritated me a great deal. Now, as I looked back… I could not help but think about what a fool I had been for having so completely put my faith in “the system”. Casein/milk proteins had been shown to act as natural opiates in children with autism... certainly helping to explain why children like Zachary wanted to eat constantly - they were getting a "drug high" from their milk! Yet, again, according to the Simpsonwood meeting, it appears that children who had "feeding problems" were excluded (see p. 98 of Simpsonwood transcripts). Needless to say, there was very little doubt that children who develop autism often had "feeding problems" - as clearly evidenced by overeating, vomiting, diarrhea, etc., in these children. Yet, children with "feeding problems" appeared to - again - have been excluded from the study! Why? What in the world did “feeding problems” have to do with “thimerosal”? It seemed to me that this had been, yet again, another attempt at “white washing” the population sample! Did the CDC suspect that thimerosal impacted insulin and hence resulted in “feeding problems”? I could not help but wonder! Why had children with “feeding problems” been excluded from this study? Zachary certainly did have “feeding problems” as did most children with autism. As such, again, in my eyes, this was yet another attempt at “white washing” the population sample! Likewise, many children experienced “jaundice” at birth. I had already spoken to several mothers of children on the autism spectrum that recalled their children having “jaundice” when born. Jaundice was another issue discussed in “book 3” and I very much suspected another issue that also very much played into all this. Had these children also been excluded? Children with “cardiac” or heart problems had also been excluded from the study. Note that my nephew, Andrew, was born with heart problems – and as such, had open-heart surgery at a very young age. Andrew was also, very much on the autism spectrum – another child who would not have been included in such a study. Yet, also as discussed in “book 3”, insulin was now known to regulate iron in the body and iron was in turn known to regulate insulin levels. Iron, toxic in excessive amounts, was also known to accumulate in all major organs – including the heart! I also now knew prenatal vitamins were loaded with iron and that the body had no good way to “flush” extra iron from the body! Was this why so many pregnant women could not tolerate prenatal vitamins and indeed, often threw them up? Were we making women iron toxic during pregnancy? I very much suspected this was indeed the case and perhaps one of the first dominos in the autism puzzle. Note that bacteria and viruses also very much “needed iron” to grow and multiply – and that “white matter” in the brain was rich in iron receptors. Not surprising to me, children with autism had shown that after given the MMR vaccine – a vaccine without mercury – viruses from that vaccine were found in the brain and the gut… exactly where “their food source” resided -another very interesting piece to the puzzle! Again, more on that in “book 3”. All of these issues now ran through my mind. I knew all of this was somehow all interrelated. That "little glucose bottle" Zachary had been given at birth because he was "low on glucose" had always bothered me since I had discovered he had autism. Clearly, this was a sign of problems with insulin even though I was not said to have gestational diabetes... a sign from DAY 1. In discussions with other parents of children with autism, I had also learned some children appeared to have low levels of iron at birth. Given iron and insulin modulated one another... that was not surprising to me (more on that in book 3). Unfortunately, children seen as "anemic" - and hence believed to be low on iron - could be given iron supplements when in fact the problem was not one of "too little iron" but "too much" and thus – more iron – appeared to be exactly what these children did not need! The following link explained how one could have "iron overload" in spite of appearing to be "anemic". http://www.ironoverload.org/anemia.htm Also excluded from the study were infants born prematurely because their systems would have been "more susceptible" to vaccines as again, clearly indicated in the Simpsonwood transcripts. It appeared that children who were premature were vaccinated on a different schedule. Yet, Dr. Verstraeten himself stated in the Simpsonwood meeting - I quote: "I can see some very premature children also getting vaccinated"... (p. 153 of Simpsonwood transcripts). Obviously, these children, being more susceptible in the first place, could very well have gone on to have "an event" that would have increased the statistical significance had they been included in this study! Thus, children who would have been among the "most susceptible" to vaccine injury, were excluded from the study, even though, clearly, according to Dr. Verstraeten himself, many very premature were also getting vaccinated... so again, why exclude this group. Clearly, again, this was but another “white washing” of the population sample and the exclusion of these children made it such that, in my opinion, the data, again, were simply not representative of “the real world” population. Also excluded were infants who died... death and autopsy reports were excluded - even though, clearly, the VAERS database indicated vaccines often played a role in childhood deaths, SIDS, and/or abnormal breathing patterns. http://www.909shot.com/Articles/gnssids.htm http://thinktwice.com/sids.htm Also excluded were children who had not received 2 polio shots. I did not understand this condition/criteria given the polio vaccine did not contain mercury and as such, it should be a “non-issue” in a study that was supposed to be looking at thimerosal… unless the scientists believed this may be a way of seeing if “something else” was the problem - like the polio shot... something that did not have mercury in it. The authors of the study seemed to indicate that their reason for including these criteria had to do with a variable involving “length of time” in an HMO. Well, certainly, a “start date” and “end date” could have easily been pulled from a computerized database. So, again, why use “polio” at all as a variable in this study. I simply did not see the logic to that. If a "non-thimerosal" containing shot was going to be included in this study, why was it not the MMR instead of the polio shot because, clearly, parents were associating the MMR with autism also. Thus, why take polio and not look at the MMR instead? Was this another “white washing” of the population sample? Why not a study also looking at the MMR – instead of the polio vaccine? Also excluded were children who had received hepatitis B immunoglobulins. Note the reason for excluding these children - I quote: "Those would be vaccinated for hepatitis B and would have a higher likelihood of the outcomes"...(p. 32 of the Simpsonwood transcripts). That exclusion was very troubling to me... it very much appeared to be saying that we specifically excluded these kids because if they had this shot, “they would be more likely to have neurodegeneration... so, let's not include them!”. Note also that the study underrepresented the effects of Hepatitis B in children because that data was generally not available and as such, the data was very much incomplete in this respect. Note that Hepatitis B was the first shot usually given to infants... often before they left the hospital... and it certainly did contain mercury and it certainly did appear to cause death in infants according to information in the VAERS database. http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/July/09/HepatitisBVaccine9.htm Also excluded were children participating in vaccine studies... for new vaccines... as indicated by Dr. Gerber's comments at the Simpsonwood meeting - again, I quote: "...it seems to me that during the time that this study was done, 1992 - 1997, at least at Northern California Kaiser, there was a substantial number of children involved in vaccine trials. The vaccines that those children would have received would not have shown up in the CPT coding. " Dr. Gerber, p. 232. Again, this exclusion was particularly troubling to me. If children were in “vaccine studies” in all likelihood, those vaccines would have gone on to be approved by the FDA and given to “other children”. If these “new vaccines” were part of the problem, by excluding these children in vaccine trials, again, we would have completely “missed” a potentially huge issue. Note also, that as clearly indicated in the Simpsonwood meeting, many children were simply not old enough yet to be diagnosed! (p. 38 of Simpsonwood transcripts). There were also issues with codes themselves. For example, a child could be said to be diagnosed with ADHD and then, later "not confirmed". Well, given that ADHD was usually confirmed around age 8 - 10, it would make sense that this "diagnosis" would not have been confirmed... perhaps the doctor was simply indicating that there was a problem. The lack of a "confirmed ADHD diagnosis" did not mean that a problem did not exist anyway – especially given ADHD was diagnosed around age 8 – 10. As such, in my opinion, "lack of confirmation" of a diagnosis of ADHD did not equal "lack of a problem or issue" – to me, that simply indicated the doctor saw a problem but perhaps the final diagnosis was still “out there” or coded as “something else”. That certainly did not mean that a problem “did not exist” in the first place. Note also that unless a mother "raised a concern", children would not have been included in the population... it was often up to the mother to "see the problems" and have the child looked at... and unfortunately, many, many children went quite a while before they were "diagnosed" - as clearly indicated in the Simpsonwood meeting. Again, I quote: "There is no routine screening of children, so it is only if the mothers bring their children for a problem that we will be able to pick it up."( p. 49 of Simpsonwood transcript). "I work in the Early Intervention Program and I wish you were right, but in a study that we have done in Michigan, we think that there is less than 40%, probably less than 30%, of the kids who are eligible in terms of delay that are in fact referred for evaluation. Even then, we don't know how many of those are getting treated..." (Dr. Weil, Simpsonwood meeting transcripts, p. 137). Also, children who "dropped out of the HMO for some reason" were not included in the study. Could these be children whose parents saw a problem and went to a DAN! (Defeat Autism Now!) doctor, etc. instead? Again, I saw a huge issue with not including children who “appeared to drop out of the HMO or not use their HMO” in the population sample. As I looked at this "population sample", clearly, in my opinion, there was much too much "white washing" of the initial population included in the study. This “final population” was clearly not even remotely representative of the "population" in general. As clearly stated by those attending the Simpsonwood meeting - I quote: "the kids you choose to let into your analysis can have a great effect on what happens eventually..." (p. 96 of Simpsonwood transcripts)... But... "As a whole, the group was pretty unanimous, in fact we were unanimous, in saying that additional research is needed." Dr. Stehr-Green, Simpsonwood transcripts, p. 252) The Simpsonwood meeting occurred in June of 2000…. Yet… Note that on November 15 of that same year - 2000 – Dr. Walt Orenstein, Director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC, attended a meeting again, on the safety of vaccines and when the FDA's Dr. Susan S. Ellenberg proposed conducting larger trials, Walt Orenstein clearly indicated he was "not in favor of expanded studies". This was not surprising given the concerns raised in Simpsonwood about "the study that should never have been done in the first place" according to the CDC itself... "... so what I will present to you is the study that nobody thought we should do".... (Dr. Verstraeten, Simpsonwood transcripts, p. 31)… and what, in my opinion, amounted to nothing more than an incredible attempt at "white-washing" of the original population sample! The simple fact was, in my opinion, that “if you don’t want to see a link between autism and vaccines” the chances were, you would do what you could to make sure “none was seen”… would you not? "I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which way the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes... I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here." (Dr. Clements, representing Expanded Program on Immunizations, WHO (World Health Organization), Geneva, Simpsonwood transcripts, p. 247). Below was a link regarding this November 2000 meeting in a story done by Reuters, on Thursday, Nov 16th, entitled: FDA, NIH, CDC reconsider system for ensuring vaccine safety, during which Walt Orenstein was asked about "expanded studies"... and stated he was "not in favor of expanded studies"... http://archive.mail-list.com/hbv_research/msg01771.html How could it be that fifty (50) people could come out of the Simpsonwood meeting stating that more studies were needed, and yet, in this meeting, Dr. Walt Orenstein, Director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC, could state that he was “not in favor of expanded studies”! Call me crazy… but, as the old saying went… “I smelled a rat…” In my opinion, there could be no doubt that the CDC Thimerosal study used a very "white washed population"... and still... they received "a signal" of a problem in terms of the correlation between vaccines and neurodegneration... while using the “most healthy” population sample they could possibly use… I suspect had they used a more representative population sample... perhaps that "signal" would have been something more in the order of a - "tornado warning"! Clearly, from everything I had come to understand about vaccines, there could be no doubt in my mind that they absolutely played a role in the autism explosion, and I suspected in the explosion of many, many other illnesses as well. Based on what I had read, in my mind, there was simply no denying that mercury absolutely appeared to play a role. Yet, I also believed there were other factors that very much played into this. Aluminum, according to another “behind closed doors meeting” appeared to be just as dangerous as mercury. Aluminum was a known gene mutant. More important, however, were the following comments from Dr. Boyd Haley, a metals expert who testified on issues of metals in vaccines during congressional hearings: “A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Include in this the toxic effects of high levels of aluminum and formaldehyde contained in some vaccines, and the synergist toxicity could be increased to unknown levels. Further, it is very well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well. They also do not possess the renal (kidney) capacity to remove aluminum. Additionally, mercury is a well-known inhibitor of kidney function."--Boyd Haley Ph.D.” [end of quote, emphasis added: Boyd Haley, quoted by LD Wedewer in Autism and Aluminum Vaccine, Exposure Comparision Study©, Autism In FocusÓ, December 10th, 2002 Newsletter, at: http://autismawakeninginia.bizland.com/autismandaluminumvaccineexposurecomparisionstudy/index.html, also submitted as official testimony on behalf of the public for December 10th, 2002 Government Reform hearings on vaccinations.] Particularly troubling for me, in Dr. Boyd Haley’s comments was the phrase: “A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day”. Yet, vaccines continued to be given, from the first few days of life with no chance given to the liver to mature and begin to produce bile to help with detoxification functions! The liver – the body’s main detoxifying organ, did not produce bile until a child reached six months of age. From everything I had read, I also knew the blood brain barrier - the envelope that protected the brain - was also not fully formed until at least six months of age. Did that leave the brain more susceptible to viruses from vaccines? I very much suspected it did. This site, founded by Dr. Haley, provided invaluable information to parents who wanted to learn more on this issue of vaccines – I encouraged all parents to spend some time surfing the information provided here: http://www.testfoundation.org/ Another excellent site providing Dr. Haley’s testimony and many, many other items of interest regarding vaccines was http://www.whale.to/vaccine/hayley.html. This site also provided a link to the text of Testimony Before the House Government Reform Committee by Boyd Haley, Ph.D. November 14, 2002 as well as a Letter by Boyd Haley, PhD, in response to an article on the ADA web site by the ADA President (May 23, 2001). This was very interesting reading to say the least. I encouraged all parents to read this information quite closely! According to research done by US Autism Ambassador LD Wedewer, comments attributed to metals expert Boys Haley also included one stating that “any good biochemist knew that thimerosal and aluminum reacted dangerously when combined together”. Thus both mercury and aluminum, individually, but especially in combination, appeared to be a major problem! Indeed, attorneys for the vaccine injured, via their “discovery process” had uncovered rather shocking information when it came to this issue of “mercury and aluminum used in combination” in a single product… and that information dated back to 1972 – over 30 years ago – and well before the “autism explosion”. Note a quote provided on this link: http://www.testfoundation.org/thimelililly.htm#Waters & Kraus. “1972 - British Medical Journal reports case of skin burns resulting from the chemical interaction of thimerosal and aluminum. "Mercury is known to act as a catalyst and to cause aluminum to oxidize rapidly, with the production of heat. "The manufacturers who supply us with thimerosal have been informed." [Thimerosal is being used in vaccines which also contain aluminum].” Much more information on this issue of “what did the pharmaceuticals know… and when” was available on the following link on this same link referenced above. When I put this information together with the neurodegeneration video from the University of Calgary, there was simply no denying that mercury, in and of itself, and indeed, mercury when used with aluminum, played a role in neurodegeneration… and again, as clearly indicated in the Simpsonwood meeting, aluminum, in and of itself, appeared to also very much be a problem! I quote again from the Simpsonwood transcripts: Dr. Weil, pg. 24: “One, up until this last discussion we have been talking about chronic exposure. I think it’s clear to me anyway that we are talking about a problem that is probably more related to bolus acute exposures, and we also need to know that the migration problems and some of the other developmental problems in the central nervous system go on for quite a period after birth. But from all of the other studies of toxic substances, the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these effects, so that moving from one month or one day of birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity. There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.” “The second point I could make is that in relationship to aluminum, being a nephrologist for a long time, the potential for aluminum and central nervous system toxicity was established by dialysis data. To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.” Dr. Egan, pg. 77: "Could you do this calculation for aluminum?" Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 77: "I did it for aluminum…Actually the results were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury one." Dr. Caserta, pg. 234: "One of the things I learned at the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico that was tied into the metal lines in biology and medicine that I never really understood before, is the interactive effect of different metals when they are together in the same organism. It is not the same as when they are alone, and I think it would be foolish for us not to include aluminum as part of our thinking with this." And, finally, this comment from the Simpsonwood transcripts – another comment that I also found very interesting…. Dr. Clarkson, pg. 21: “There is an issue that pharmacokinetics might be different, too. Again, this is all animal work, but the animal studies suggested, for example, a suckling animal does not eliminate methylmercury until the end of the suckling period, and there is a mechanism on the study for that. So there could be an age difference in the excretion rates. This seemed to indicate to me that not only were mercury, and aluminum major issues, but, if the child was nursing, there very much could also be a possibility that the child could not “excrete” the toxins until after nursing had ceased. Given mercury could be passed from mother to child via breastmilk, that certainly was again, a huge issue of concern! Was this missing ability to eliminate methylmercury in suckling animals tied to the fact that, in humans, bile was also not produced in the first six months of life… the very time an infant could also be suckling? Why was it that during the most critical period of life – when a child was suckling – that bile was not produced? I did not know the answer to that but, now, there were so many issues that concerned me… I now also believed that viruses - in and of themselves - and iron overload - very much played into this puzzle also. Excess iron was known to accumulate in all major organs. Viruses needed iron to grow and thrive. Iron overload very much appeared to be a problem in children with autism and it was well documented as an issue in many, many disorders – disorders such as Alzheimer’s – a disorder that I now knew to have over one hundred parallels - to autism – a disorder I now very much suspected to be nothing more than “autism in the elderly”. It appeared iron overload, found in so many of these disorders, provided the perfect environment for viruses to grow and multiply. The thought of prenatal vitamins – loaded with iron – certainly was of major concern to me because I now knew that iron impacted insulin – a hormone – and a very critical one at that – and that this relationship between iron and insulin was bi-directional. Hormones were extremely sensitive – measured in parts per trillion. Iron, in excess, could lead to tremendous damage in the body. In addition, iron was known to bind to nitric oxide. Nitric oxide production issues had been identified in those with autism, Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia – all disorders I now believed to be but shades of the same thing. Excess nitric oxide was scientifically shown to lead to cell death. Mercury also impacted hormones. Mercury was also known to “love sulfur”. Sulfur was also found in enzymes, proteins, blood, and antibodies. What we saw in autism appeared to be the result of several factors coming into play… mercury, aluminum, iron, and viruses themselves. These, in my opinion, were the primary culprits behind this disorder. All these issues were discussed at length in my third book and I strongly encouraged all parents of children with autism to read this text as there was simply too much to even begin to get into here. As important as language development was, understanding the many critical issues that played into “autism” was, in my opinion, just as important – if not moreso. How could one possibly begin to address the issues without first understanding them? As such, I could not stress enough the need for all parents to also read “book 3”, Breaking The Code: Putting Pieces In Place! posted in full on my website – as were all my books. In my first book, I had come to understand that “order” or “categorization” was absolutely key in Zachary’s issues. In so much, he seemed to always want things in a specific way. By the time I had completed my second book, I realized that the reason “order” was so critical to Zachary was because in everything, it appeared he needed to “break the code” in order to understand “how things fit together”. I came to see that, in Zachary’s case, it was as if he could not understand a concept without first understanding each individual part to that concept. For example, in order to understand “a pencil”, Zachary had to first understand all the “components” that made up a pencil… the wood, the color, the eraser, the lead, etc. I found in so many things, before Zachary could understand “the concept”, I had to label everything for him in order to help him understand how they all “fit together”. Without that “integration” of the “parts into the whole”, Zachary’s world was but a world of incomprehensible bits and pieces, and, indeed – a world full of frustration. This was true in so, so many areas of life… in everything from language to emotions, to behavior. One of the functions in the parietal lobe involved allowing one to integrate sensory information for the understanding of a single concept – and this, clearly was an issue for Zachary. That could result from two things. First, either this particular part of the brain was not working or second, the sensory information (visual, auditory, touch, etc.) was not properly reaching this part of the brain. The various senses were located in different parts of the brain, and as such, I strongly suspected, given the University of Calgary study, that the issue was more one of sensory input not making it to the right place in order to be properly integrated into the understanding of a single concept. The fact that so often, seizures were documented in these disorders also seemed to be very much in line with this theory. Seizures certainly appeared to result from improper neural connectivity or transmission - almost a “short circuiting” of the brain. Seizures could take many forms… blank stares, aimless wandering, and aimless or repetitive motor functions (i.e., picking at things), etc. Although children with autism were known to develop seizures at puberty, I suspected that seizures could very much be what we were seeing with “blank stares” also – something so very common, so very early on, in children with autism! Certainly, there could be no doubt that blank stares in children with autism could be nothing more than seizure activity that was not recognized for what it truly was by parents who were so new to the world of “autism”. Again, given the University of Calgary experiment showing neural degeneration due to mercury exposure appeared to be a confirmation of this very, very strong possibility. By the time I had completed my third book, I had the opportunity to study brain structure and function a great deal more and now, more than ever, my suspicions of little or no communication among the various parts of the brain seemed to be confirmed. As I looked at the chart showing what specific parts of the brain were responsible for, there simply could be no denying the case for little or no communication among the various parts of the brain in the children of “autism”. Did that mean connections had been severed permanently? In my opinion, the answer to that was a resounding – no! The brain was believed to reach 95% of its adult size by the age of 6. Yet, we were constantly making new discoveries relating to the fascinating human brain and its ability to adapt to trauma. And, we also knew that the more a specific part of the brain was used, the more it developed or formed “new connections”. In my opinion, the key to that “adaptation after trauma” was in understanding how to bridge the various parts of the brain by using similar functions that existed in different areas. For example, there were memory functions in various parts of the brain. This was also true for visual and language functions. As such in order to “reconnect” the “disconnected”, the key had to be in activating those areas that were “similar” and that could possibly stimulate various parts of the brain at once. I truly believed that in stimulating only limited parts of the brain – something I saw in so many current therapy practices - that we were not addressing the underlying issue. To “reconnect” the brain required activating as much of the brain as possible – at once! This was the reason for which I now firmly believed that a computer was a medical necessity for these children. While on the computer, almost the entire brain could be activated. That certainly appeared to explain why so many children, like Zachary, absolutely loved the computer. While on the computer, it was my belief that as a result of the tremendous brain activity going on, these children could much more easily come to “break the code” and finally understand their world as the various parts of their brain – together - worked on “breaking the code” – all at once! Clearly, having several functions working at understanding something had to be better than having just one or two functions attempting to solve the problem. Finally, it was also my belief that because of the very limited communication that existed among the various parts of the brain in children with autism that functions co-located in one area appeared to attempt to compensate by becoming much more integrated. In other words, it truly appeared that even though functions across, for example, the frontal, and temporal lobe, were not communicating the way they needed to be, that functions within a specific area – for example, within the temporal lobe itself – appeared to have a magnified or increased ability to interact with one another. Again, there could be different reasons for this. It stood to reason that those neurons closest to one another would interact the most with one another. As such, neurons in the temporal lobe more than likely had better communication – due simply to physical location – with one another than say would neurons in the temporal lobe interacting with those in the occipital lobe. That had huge implication for teaching and/or communication. For example, the frontal lobe, associated with production of language, motor functions, sense of self, imagination, etc., appeared to have no visual functions associated with it. As such, to use visual input to teach a child with autism was in my opinion, not the best approach, and perhaps, this helped to explain why up to 50% of these children were – non-verbal! In addition to “physical proximity” of neurons in matters relating to how well specific parts of the brain communicated, was the issue of neurofibrillary tangles. The University of Calgary experiment had stated that after mercury exposure, not only were neurons completely devastated and impacted in terms of their future growth potential, but, neurons also went on to form neurofibrillary tangles. What that told me was that the potential was certainly there for neurons having normally different functions to become “entangled” and hence start communicating more with one another. That certainly could explain why we saw this apparent increased communication in so many functions relating to autism – for example, the uncanny ability to remember so many facts, figures, texts/videos, etc. It had been well documented that many children with autism appeared to have a fantastic memory for certain facts. Memory and “categorization” functions were co-located in the temporal lobe and as such, I certainly could understand why this would be the case given my theory of heightened communication among the various functions located within a specific region of the brain. All of this had absolutely huge implications in terms of not only reaching the child with autism, but also in understanding, teaching and controlling the behavior of the child with autism. Thus herein were the most valuable keys of all in finally coming to understand and reach the children of autism! The three critical keys, I firmly believed were: 1) to activate as much of the brain as possible in attempting to “break the code” to anything 2) to make use of similar or “bridging” functions that existed in various parts of the brain, and 3) to understand the positives and negatives implications of heightened communication among the various functions co-located within a specific part of the brain. There was no doubt that this last point was also very, very critical. Within this heightened communication among the various functions of the brain within a specific individual region (i.e., the temporal lobe itself, or within the frontal lobe itself, etc.) were in my opinion, keys to helping these children but also the traps that could only further make them worse! For example, within the frontal lobe, there resided both the functions of imagination and the concept of self. Were these functions to become “too integrated”, obviously, that could result in disastrous consequences – the loss of self and the loss of one’s sense of reality. Note that the although the concept of self and the function of imagination were co-located in the frontal lobe, the ability to distinguish between truth and a lie (the real and the non-real) was located not in the frontal lobe, but in the temporal lobe. As such, if one had heightened communication among functions relating to the concept of self and imagination but had little or no communication with the functions located in the temporal lobe – that part of the brain that appeared to play a role in one’s ability to perceive reality - then, the implications of that were serious indeed, because, quite clearly one could very much lose touch with reality if these parts of the brain were not communicating properly and there existed heightened communication or interaction among functions relating to the sense of self and imagination. Thus again, the keys were in understanding the various brain structures and functions and in using those things to one’s advantage in reaching these children but in very much keeping a close eye on “the traps” that could be very, very detrimental if not kept “in check”. I discuss these issues in much greater length in both my second and third books and as such, again, I strongly encouraged all families afflicted by autism, Alzheimer’s or schizophrenia to read these books I had previously written. I could only briefly touch on these issues here to provide just “a glimpse” of the issues as I saw them – issues that had been the focus of my previous works. In my opinion, the implications of all this were absolutely huge - those implications could be hugely beneficial, or hugely detrimental! Having covered issues of “common ground” as they related to vaccines, etc., I would turn my attention, specifically, to matters of communication, tie these issues related to communication to matters of brain structure and function and how provide insights as to what I believed parents could do to help their children either gain or increase communication skills. Again, I was certainly no doctor or therapist. These were simply insights I had wanted to provide – as a mother - based on what I had seen in my son in terms of language development. Although we usually thought of “communication” as “talking to one another” the implications of all this spanned far beyond that… to communication issues in terms of understanding behaviors, in terms of understanding best teaching practices for these children, etc. Truly these materials impacted absolutely all areas of life for these persons. As such, the materials in this text were of value to all families facing autism, Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia – including those families where children were already verbal. In order to provide a “common ground” in terms of “language development” for all readers, however, I also needed to provided the following section on language issues as written in my second book, Breaking The Code To Remove The Shackles Of Autism: When The Parts Are Not Understood And The Whole Is Lost! This section provided many, many of my thoughts on language. “Updates” to this information and a discussion of “what had worked” or “not worked” based on brain structure and function as well as information on “what else to try”, and “what to watch out for or avoid”. In my opinion, there could be no denying that children with autism had to be taught in a very, very specific way. That was what I hoped to show with the remainder of this of this book as I provided my insights not only on “what had worked for us” but on “what I would have done differently” had I known then, what I knew now. Again, those persons who had already read this text could simply skip ahead to the next section entitled “Updates To Language Section Provided In Book 2” although in my opinion, reading this again would certainly provide a good “refresher”. |
|