OK, if we're going to be delving into the genetics-vs.-environmental argument, then someone smarter than I am should answer this one: if most autism is genetic, why wasn't autism described in the medical literature before 1943? Leo Kanner wrote that he was observing an aberration in behavior never before seen in human history. If he was wrong, someone would have stepped in to correct him immediately after his paper was published--and as far as I know, no one did. And again, if most autism is genetic, why was there not even a word for this condition before the middle of the 20th century? The human genome didn't change radically in the 1930s and 1940s--but our environment certainly did as more and more chemicals came on the market. Think pesticides and thimerosol!

Monica, I'm sorry if I offended you, but you don't need to 'clue me in.' I have plenty of my own knowledge, and even though I may not have as much going on as you do, my life is still difficult. My daughter may just be Asperger's, but she's also been labeled as a savant in many areas, and she's hyperlexic. My daughter isn't disabled, and I never said that autism or Asperger's was a disability, and she's more than different, she's special. And for you to tell me that I don't have a clue is not fair. My post was not intended to 'bash' parents, or try to say that 'my life is harder than every one elses,' it was simply an opinion on the Georgia case based on my own knowledge. And part of my opinion is that autism, including Asperger's is mostly genetic, and in your case, that is supported. I'm not trying to say that I know everything either, I'm sure that there is plenty that I don't know, but I definately have alot more than a clue. Thanks anyway.

Being the mother of a 4 year old with Asperger's Syndrome, I have strong feelings regarding this entire case. First and foremost, I still don't see how it can be physically and medically proven that vaccines can be a sole underlying cause of autism. I would believe it if it was a combination of genitics and timing AND the vaccines, but not just the vaccines. To me, that sounds like parents that feel too 'guilty' or ashamed to actually admit that THEY might be the actual reason that their child has autism. When my daughter was 13 months old, and not developing normally, my brother-in-law made a comment regrding my husbands 2 children from a previous relationship, and how 'they didn't act that way.' I was so enraged and distraut by that statement that it made me feel like he was saying that I was at fault, because I was the only different factor. As time went on, I got over it, and I learned that my daughters autism just happened, and I shouldn't feel at fault.
Secondly, I have a 3 year old son also, and a baby on the way. My son doesn't have any form of autism...but then again, due to financial issues and medical insurance problems, he never recieved all of his vaccines on time...so does that give me the grounds to file a lawsuit stating that vaccines caused my daughter to get autism??? Personally, I feel that alone is more evidence than anything else that I've heard or read, but you'll never see me in court, denying that nature is the MAIN reason for my daughters condition, not to mention what it costs to take something like that to court. I guess if I was a lawyer and my husband was a doctor, then we'd have the resources to make a case, but right now, we both go to school and live day-to-day...we can't pay for a lawsuit. And at this point, I can't decide how safe I feel about vaccines for the baby on the way, because I do believe that either myself or my husband, or both carry some form of gene related to autism, and timing and vaccines could have 'activated it.' Maybe our son got lucky and didn't get the gene, or maybe he has it, and it was never 'activated'
...we'll never know.
And another thing, the article that I read about this case states, and I quote, "The Polings described how Hannah was a normal, verbal toddler until she recieved several vaccines during a well-baby visit....At 3 months of age, she began showing signs of autism, including spinning and staring at lights and fans. For a while, she lost her ability to speak....When Hannah was 6 months old,...the family came to grips with the liklihood that she was autistic..." OK, I see a few problems with this, first of all, a 'toddler' doesn't go to a 'well-baby visit', a 'toddler' isn't 3 months old or 6 months old for that matter! What fantastic technology did this family have access to that says that when their daughter was 6 weeks old, she DID NOT already have autism??? What resources does this family have that tells them that at 6 months, 6 MONTHS, that her development wasn't progressing properly??? From what I can remember, any baby that I've had will watch the movement of a fan, or be attracted to a light...and at 3 to 6 months old, they definately could not speak!
I don't have anything against the Poling family, Terry and Jon seem to be well-established in their careers, and it is obvious that they care greatly for their daughter and other children, and I'm sure that Hannah is a fantastic little girl. But I can't help but wonder, did mom and dad pull a few strings to get this case to where it's at now?? Maybe vaccines are the cause of autism for some children, but without a solid way to prove it, the whole population of families that have children with autism could go and file a lawsuit, and WIN, because the Polings had no real proof, so who needs real proof?

"I still would not think that we're going to have evidence showing a role of vaccines actually causing autism."

Well doc, that’s a pretty presumptuous statement considering you are still trying to access the sealed medical records -- to look at the science -- to come to a conclusion.

Now where have we heard THAT before – rendering a scientific verdict before even looking at the evidence?

Dr. McCormick: ….we are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect….” IOM VSR 1/12/01 closed door transcript