A World Of Choices for your Child at The Autism One/Generation Rescue 2010 Conference
Silenced Witnesses: UK Autism Parents Speak Out

A Few Choice Words for the U. Miami Study That Points to Early Parenting And Autism

Money down toilet From UPI Health News. Words fail us... Who funded this study? You did, if you pay taxes and walk for Autism Speaks and raise money for the Marino Foundation. The study is saying that "parents can reduce autism symptoms" via appropriate maternal sensitivity (for those of you who think we are misinterpreting the study, that fact is from a trusted source.) That's not a far stretch from the Refrigerator Mother theory no matter how you slice it. If Jenny McCarthy told us she had "talked her son out of autism by appropriate maternal sensitivity" imagine the media response.

Acknowledgments This study was funded by NIH grants
R01HD047417, T32 HD007473 (University of Miami), and T32HD07489 (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Autism Speaks, and the Marino Autism Research Institute. We wish to thank the students and staff of the UM Sib Study for their efforts with data collection andmanagement and Whitney Gealy, Silviana Guerra, Maria Kimijima,and Katelyn Vertucci for their superb rating of maternal sensitivity.We thank Rachel Fenning, Naomi Ekas, and Lisa Ibanez for theirinput on drafts of the manuscript and we are especially grateful to the families for their participation.

MIAMI, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- University of Miami researchers say maternal sensitivity may influence language development among children who go on to develop autism.

Daniel Messinger of the University of Miami, the principal investigator of a larger study of infants at risk for autism that includes this study, says the study examines how early parenting can promote resiliency in this population.

"Language problems are among the most important areas to address for children with autism, because they represent a significant impairment in daily living and communication," Messinger said in a statement.

Maternal sensitivity is defined in the study as a combination of warmth, responsiveness to the child's needs, respect for his or her emerging independence, positive regard for the child, and maternal structuring, or how a mother engages and teaches her child. For example, if a child is playing with colored rings, the mother might say, "This is the green ring," thus teaching her child about his environment, Messinger says.

The study, published online ahead of print in the upcoming Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, says maternal sensitivity was more predictive of language growth among toddlers developing autism than among children who did not go on to an autism diagnosis.


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well.
The following is of considerable importance in helping autistic children with the development of language.

The higher desire (or feeling) of genius merges (or balances) increased intentionality of experience with increased concern in order to gain what is a fundamental extension of being, desire, thought, and experience. Given the relatively advanced consciousness (and desire) of the ideal (or highest) form of genius, experience and the self are extended and balanced at a shared and higher level of feeling, and experience becomes increasingly desirable, intentional, and concerning. Experience becomes more extensive and comprehensive as a reflection of desire, for the self then represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive and consistent approximation of reality. Language then becomes possible in the different sensory modalities.

The comprehensiveness and consistency of both intention and concern in relation to experience in general are critical to the development and improvement of language in autism.

Tina Qamar

I feel I can say children born with autism because out of my 6 children 2 have autism.
If autism is only caused by vaccines than why do only 2 out of 6 of my children have it?
Why do children that have never been vaccinated have autism? There has to be more than 1 factor as to why children have autism. It is my belief that the stage is set from conception.Why is it more prevelent in males than females? I have not seen a study saying males are vaccinated 4 times more than females. I am not saying that vaccinations do not play part in this I am saying there could be more than 1 factor as why children have autism. By the way I did not have any shots ever while pregnant. I don't like fish. My last 3 children did have Hep B before leaving the hospital. Everyone has the right to say what they think. The bottom line is everyone writing their thoughts on here have a right to believe what they believe. I have a right to express my concern when regarding my autistic children. I am to busy making sure my children get a proper education to spin my wheels with parents that have a different opinion. You are entitled to your opinion and the best of luck to all of you.

Susan Kestner

Now HERE's the study I want to see funded: HYPOTHESIS: That parents of at-risk infants who immediately research and implement DAN Protocol bio-medical interventions under the oversight of a DAN-trained physician or other medical provider correlate with higher overall outcomes. What I don't get is WHAT POSSIBLE BENEFIT Autism Speaks thought might come from finding out whether more "sensitive" mothers can improve language outcomes in the already "at-risk". Do we recommend, given the results, that all mothers of "at-risk" children undergo testing and that all those mothers diagnosed as "insufficiently sensitive" undergo therapy??? Ditto to those who abhor this study as a waste of precious funds. Autism Speaks...what are you thinking???

Philip Rudnick

This study provides conclusive evidence that an epidemic of parental insensitivity starting in the 1990's and continuing to grow is responsible for the autism epidemic starting at that time and continuing to grow. It also provides another example of hundreds that NIH is always able, and more than ready, to fund autism research with the proviso that as far its outcome being possibly relevant to the etiology of autism, that it be dreck, like this one.

Donna Kincanon


You tried to find something positive out of this publication. And I can see your point of view. From the abstract, "Maternal sensitivity at 18 months predicted expressive language growth from age 2 to 3 years among children with emergent ASD only." Someone could read that as positive - interpreting it as suggesting mothers who demonstrated quality and effective behavioral and communication skills had ASD children with better expressive language growth. But, I can also see how it can be interpreted differently and see a far different scenario coming out of this publication. I believe the way the abstract was written will serve to seed future behavioral and speech therapists with the idea that children with an autism diagnosis with severe speech/language impairments were the result of "maternal sensitivity" deficits.

Speech and behavioral therapists usually don't enter the picture for developmental services until there has been a need identified. They are introduced to a child who can't talk. They will be mindful of this research and make assumptions about the quality of "maternal sensitivity." I'm very concerned about this research being interpreted into practice this way.



My son was not born with autism. Perhaps yours was, I don't know. But mine was not. So maybe we can start saying "my child" instead of "children" as a group.

My child "developed" autism as a result of something I did, most notably forced him down on a table and gave permission for him to be injected with toxic substances.

That's simply my story, and it might be different than yours.

A Mom

If you are posting to me, Henderson, never did I say (or think, btw) that parents or the parent you are defending (for what, I don't know) "are wrong...can't possibly know what happened to their own children."

Perhaps you should re-read my post and consider it in the spirit it was intended, which is absent of the tone and accusations you make.

Why would questions posed in an effort to help set anyone off so much?

Many people still do not realize that some flu shots contain mercury, even those given to pregnant women. Some people do not realize the Rhogams contain(ed) mercury. Some people don't make the connection between amalgum fillings or mercury-laden fish.

If you and the mom I commented to know these things, please consider yourself informed. And maybe don't be so quick to attack someone who is just trying to help?

Tina wrote:

"Develop autism???? I think it would be a great idea for the people performing studies regarding autism to first know what it is!!!
It is uneducated people like this that make things harder for us as parents of autistic children!!!
Children are born with autism and it is nothing we as mothers have done or did not do!!!"

In fact, my child (and many others) "developed autism" as a result of and after her vaccines.



Your story sounds similar to mine.

My son was born with a low apgar score so I was worried to begin with, but he did develop normally. However, we kept seeing these small set backs along the way.

He got his MMR and the next day seemed to be drunk; stumbling, confused, etc. but I was still naive and did not believe a vaccine could do this.

Two months later, he was in his own world. The contrast between 16 months and 20 months is very dramatic, all recorded on long length video taping. It only worsened after that.

Over 3 years, we worked like crazy to rebuild his language skills, tried to work with attention and pronoun reversal, etc.

But at 5 years, he was given several booster shots at once and his language that was regained became a stream of stutters and stammering, he began having staring spells, started bouncing off the walls hyper and would spin in circles. It was only then that I began to realize what was happening to him.

Today, he has a medical exmption from further vaccination due to a suspicion of mitochondrial dysfunction through the Genetics and Neurology Dept at Children's Hospital.


To a mother questioning another mother out there -

I've met many parents who think there was something wrong from the get go (and I'm in Canada where we don't have the Heb-B at birth - the first vaccination isn't until 2m). I've met many who think their child was perfect before a single vaccination. I've met many (like myself) - I actually know what toxic thing happened (gestationally), then add his delivery (horrific potosin - then c-section - then antibiotics), then each vaccine made things worse and worse (he has a scar from one of his shots), ear infection after another, etc. THEN, ONE WHAMMY (Flu shot) - where he literally disapeared before my eyes.

I believe EVERYONE. I believe EVERYONE'S story. Just read Dr. Philip Landrigan, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine who wrote in a Jan. 16, 2010, article in the medical journal Current Opinion in Pediatrics.


NOTHING is that simple (that ALL of our kids have vaccine damage - like mine). I wish it was that simple.

What about the vinyl flooring in the long term Swedish Study?

Wouldn't it be great if ALL of our kids we could point to vinyl flooring - We can't.

The point - our world is SO toxic - the "triggers" can be many, many. And vaccines just make everything worse. For mine this is very true.

So far - in my travels (outside of this board) - I think 30% feel like it was from birth, 30% are like me (something continually was getting worse and worse and vaccines compounded it - and they can mark many mini regressions), and 40% think their child was absolutely perfect before the vaccine damage.

I'm not going into my child's toxic gestation story - it's horrific and makes me cry every time. It's real, it happened. I've seen MAINSTREAM rat doctors mouths just drop when I tell them.

Re: the parents that are convinced that their child isn't vaccine damaged - let them think that way. You know how much it infuriates us when people tell us we are wrong that we can't possibly know what happened to our own children - please don't do the same.

A Mom to Tina

Our child was not born with autism. She met all of her milestones on time. She started having seizures and then later regressed after vaccines.

Most parents I know and have read about do not believe their children were born with autism. Though there are some that do.

While pregnant, did you have a mercury containing flu shot, Rhogam shot? Do you have analgum fillings or did you consume a lot of mercury-laden fish while pregnant? Does your child have one of the genetic disorders (like fragile x) associated with autism?

Did your newborns receive a Hep B shot before they left the hospital?

I am not asking to be nosy or harrassing or to make you answer.



Thank you.

My comment you quoted, though, was not a validation of the study itself. Quoting just that one line takes the entire post out of context.

If you go back and read my original post, you will see post after post with people thinking the study was saying that they CAUSED their child's autism by not interacting with them. I responded to that and posted "The study isn't saying that a lack of interaction between a parent and child causes autism. It is saying that a child who is going to develop autism benefits from more verbal interaction from the parent and helps reduce language deficits."

My original post was doing nothing more than explaining the actual results the study came up with. It wasn't my conclusion. It was the study's conclusion.

Because I posted the STUDY'S conclusion, you said I was implying that they were right.

My second answer to this is the same. I wasn't implying that. I was explaining their results. I read the abstract for this study and see it as though it was saying early intervention MAY help SOME children (as opposed to if you didn't talk to your child, you CAUSED their autism). I didn't write the study, I was simply interpretting THEIR results differently than some others here.

Developing language didn't help my child, yours or many others here. They still lost their language skills. I specifically said that my son was able to regain his language AFTER losing it and that the language he developed before hand was lost. I also specifically said that I have no idea if this study's ideas would work on SOME children or not.

I explained my view of what this study is saying.

For everyone else that keeps attacking me as if I came on here and told you all to talk more to your child, or that I am "suppressing the truth about vaccines", you have no idea what you're talking about.

As far as whether or not I would give it a try if I had another child and was afraid they may develop autism? I would dance with a noodle if I thought it would help. Sorry if that offends anyone.

Tina Qamar

Develop autism???? I think it would be a great idea for the people performing studies regarding autism to first know what it is!!!
It is uneducated people like this that make things harder for us as parents of autistic children!!!
Children are born with autism and it is nothing we as mothers have done or did not do!!!
I quit a great paying career to be with my autistic children. I do private therapies,many school meetings,and study the laws regarding special education to help my children.
Something I am positive there will never be a study on is how much we as parents sacrafice to help our children BECAUSE WE LOVE THEM SO MUCH!!!!

Heather White

I quit my job to raise my son, I breastfed and hovered over him like an unending vigil. He was engaging with speech and sign language. Lots of great eye contact and loving. July 2005 after being given 8 vaccines he receded into the typical characteristics of autism. After 5 years of extensive therapies he is now going to be mainstreamed into the public school system (with an aid) which I thought could not be possible. Write what you wish Colleen, say what you feel. You cannot stop the truth from bubbling up. I will no longer be silent. I have always loved my child even when he was biting me because I felt his anger and pain.


It is so clear to many who saw it happen before there eyes.

Donna Kincanon


From your most recent response I can see you meant no harm. But, your comment: "It is saying that a child who is going to develop autism benefits from more verbal interaction from the parent and helps reduce language deficits," supports their theory that the mothers' "engaging" or "teaching" behaviors were a determinant in language growth/loss.

Their conclusion, "Maternal sensitivity at 18 months predicted expressive language growth from age 2 to 3 years among children with emergent ASD only" does not address early intervention, it specifically places the responsibility of language growth on the mothers. I guess you're reading that as - more maternal sensitivity, more language growth. But it also implies, less maternal sensitivity, less language growth. What if you were the mother of a child who lost all language in his/her regression despite all efforts? And despite all interventions, still has a child that struggles to speak?

This paper just gives credence to those who think Bettleheim wasn't so far off the mark.

PS Thank you for your kind comment for my daughter. I am truly happy for you that your son has done so well.


Maggie - "Kids without brain damage learn how to talk without any help at all."

THANK YOU, already!

Colleen - That's a lot of typing for still just not getting it. Early intervention can help kids who are "at risk" for autism, before they develop autism? DUH. What kids are "at risk?" Geez, don't we KNOW this info already????????

I am sick, sick, sick to death of all this Early Intervention horsecrap being The Gold Standard for helping kids with autism. Unless of course, EI = STOP VACCINATING THE CRAP OUT OF BABIES.

If that's not what it is, and you think "re-training" mothers on how to speak to their children is going in the right direction, I got nothin' else.


I have a dream.

I'm dreaming of a place where "experts" and "scientists" and "researchers," aided by the authorities, swoop in and remove my children from me because of my lack of "maternal sensitivity."

My "at-risk" (who determines that shit?) child would be in harm's way if my maternal sensitivity meter wasn't above whatever pre-determined measure our Child and Family Services folk decided was appropriate.It's all for the good of the children, of course. It would be abusive otherwise.

Far-fetched? Not with studies like these, people. Are you ready for that?


Kids without brain damage learn how to talk without any help at all. I spend every waking minute trying to teach my 11 year old autistic child appropriate behavior and language with almost no results. My other neglected and unvaccinated children learned how to talk, play, behave, read and have friends without any help at all. An undamaged brain WANTS to learn.


I have been told that my daughter's recovery is due to the fact that I trained her out of autism. I really love that one to, They don't have a clue you can not train these kids out of autism nor can you prevent it unless you stay out of toxins and don't vaccinate your kid. Early intervention was a joke as well due to the fact the more vaccines I gave my daughter the worse she got. The more the pediatrican told me I was a nervous mother. I believed him what was worse. I did a lot of reading and studying and thanks be to a wonderful DAN doctor and to God my daughter is recovered. not to say she doesn't have issues and has to stay on the protocol. God bless you all.


My son's first word was "blue" as I was teaching him he colors, until que got his MMR shot, then he lost it and 7 years latter he started repeating some words again. How can anybody be so cruel?



I implied no such thing. Nor would I.

I am one of those parents, too. My child's loss of language skills was not my fault either, nor would I blame any parent for their child's loss of language skills.

I had a baby at 40 years old and my first concern was Down Syndrome. I immediately looked up everything I could to learn what I could do to help in early intervention. Would it take away the Down Syndrome? No. Might it help? Maybe.

Thankfully, my daughter was born perfectly healthy. But when I look at this study, I see early intervention as a possible tool to help those children who may be at risk for developing autism. It won't cause the autism if a parent does not use what was inappropriately named "maternal sensitivity" nor will it necessarily help all children who do develop autism.

Since I did not read the entire study and was only going by the abstract printed here, it is good information to know that Mark did read it and explained the statistical errors behind the study. So, the study itself is crap. Okay.

However, my original comment simply stated that the study suggests that early intervention of a child with autism MAY help that child in the area of language. I never implied that any parent did not try hard enough to stimulate language development in their child.

To do so would have been throwing myself under the bus as well. My child, thankfully, did regain the loss of his language skills although he does still have some issues concerning the use of language. Did it help him that we literally attacked that area of his development to regain those skills? Of course it helped him. Does that mean that it would help all children to do that? Of course not. My son is fortunate. I understand that. But I also understand that it did help him and would help SOME others who have the ability to regain their language. Might it help SOME children to hold on to their language skills and not lose them completely to begin with? I have no idea. All of the children are so diffferent that I don't think any of us can possibly answer that. It didn't help mine or yours or many others when they lost their language skills.

But I never implied that any parent didn't try hard enough with their child. And as a side note, I'm glad that the dietary changes helped your daughter.


People Please help me here!!!!

I love Temple Grandin but she is saying that Autism is a gift and now people who have no freakin clue about Autism are going to think that we are nuts because we are complaining about out child's Autism. Please read... If I am taking this the wrong way then please correct me...


Andrea Hargreaves

For example, if a child is playing with colored rings, the mother might say, "This is the green ring," thus teaching her child about his environment, Messinger says.

REALLY??? Wow, I guess if I could have just gotten my son to actually play with something so that I could respond like that, he wouldn't be autistic after all. What an amazing piece of research! NOT!


Lets send autism speaks and the other funders pictures of our selves with our babies. All of us. Every picture.


PhillyLisa, brava! I nursed Mia 100% for several months. Gianna nursed for 24 hours perfectly too - then her Hep B and then she spent the next 6 months biting my nippes bloody and screaming - having lost her ability to feed properly. I did not connect the dots until I read the primate study. Gianna had the full mercury dose Hep B in 1996 and I SIGNED THE CONSENT FORM! Me, the Anti-Vaxxer Mom.... Ha ha.


Yes, yes, we all know breastfeeding is wonderful. Mine nursed beautifully for twenty-four hours until she had the Hep B shot. It was all downhill from there.

Darian (nickname)

These people make me sick!!! No one worked harder to take care of her children then my mom! She worked three jobs at one time because she was a single parent providing a roof over our heads and food on the table without any assistance!

She spent hours with me teaching me how to properly act in public and why something I did socially was incorrect with a grace and a sensitivity without par! And she never complained! She never looked for a pat on the back!

And these people have the balls to tell her she didn't try hard enough! I have two words for these people! One begins with f, and the other ends with a u!

HOW DARE YOU!?!!?!?!

To all the warriar moms out there, keep fighting the good fight! If this is what they have to resort to, the victory is sure, and your long and hard labors shall come to fruition, like my mom's did!


"Studies show that breastfed babies have a significantly lower incidence of autism compared with formula-fed babies."

Taximom5, would you please provide links to these studies? I'd like to read them.



The next funded study is that ASD children should have been taught the designer color names.
For Green it should be, Mountain Meadow or Sea Green.
La~ la~ la - how much money can we spend on stupid studies.

Georgia Mom



Funny thing is, regardless of the true meaning of this 11 ASD case study, it will be twisted in the media, CDC, AAP, NBC, etc. as they see fit.

Ironic, wasn't Wakefield's a "case study" and wasn't that twisted?

Case studies have their place in science but only to a point. Case studies are the most subjective type of analysis because it is based interpretations of the test results and biases of the interviewer. This proves ESPECIALLY challenging in ASD children where the interviewer is not experienced or knowledgeable of ASD psychology.

michael framson

I've only read the abstract. I resent having to pay $34.00 for research that some of my tax dollars have already been spent. I will reserve some judgment when I can read the study in full.

If the take home message is this: "The message here is that parents can make a difference in helping their children fight against autism," Baker says.


THEN......WHAT EVER amount NIH or Autism Speaks funded for this research, was wasted, irresponsibly spent, and joining the familiar long list of repetitive,worthless, research, bordering on the obscene.

Autism Grandma

Re Post by Tricia: "it simply suggests there may be certain parenting techniques that can help some (not all) children with Autism develop language. The rationale behind a study of this nature is not to blame parents for their children's problems, but to help develop training programs and therapies to assist in language development in children with Autism."

First of all, why would this study be any different than most of the other so called studies which interpret statistics to jive with the intended outcome of finding anything BUT vaccines to connect to autism.

Secondly, excuse me, but from my own experience with my grandson, and also based on what parents here at AoA have written about their EXTENSIVE efforts with their children, autism mothers KNOCK THEMSELVES OUT to super compensate for their child's behaviors and needs. I have exercised more patience, more understanding, more attention, and more affection with my grandson than I ever did with my own daughter, not because I love him more than I loved her, but because he REQUIRES so much more of everything. My daughter is a phenomenal mother in her attentions and affections towards her son, and she is no different than the other autism mothers.

And by God it is alot harder to keep up at this pace compared to the EASY job of caring for my grandson BEFORE the last batch of vaccines sent him into screaming, kicking, biting, and throwing and breaking everything in sight, and BEFORE he was chronically sick as a dog for God's sake. Gee it sure was lovely when he was walking and talking and acting like a normal baby BEFORE that tragic last batch of vaccines including MMR which also trashed his intestines and deprived him and my daughter of sleep before we finally got that fixed with recovery therapies. But in spite of massive sleep deprivation my daughter still poured all of her love into her child and as much as these poor damaged children require LOVE, that never improved my grandson's condition one iota. A big fat list of nutritional remedies and alternative medicine therapies is what improved him and finally is producing his ability to speak words again.

Just another study beating around the bush sending everyone off into a wild goose chase to deflect attention away from the REAL CAUSE of autism which is environmental toxins especially VACCINES.

These so called "studies" are leading alot of people off into a million wrong directions, but the families of children with autism know what they have witnessed with their own eyes.

Some day the truth about all this is going to finally emerge, but I doubt if anyone will actually be held accountable for all this except by God. The government and the legal system will let them all off the hook, but someday they will have a reckoning with the Almighty and AMEN to that.

Donna Kincanon


You're still implying that the parents just didn't try hard enough or effectually to stimulate speech/language development in their child. My daughter didn't gain any benefit from any of the therapies until we went GFCF. She was also involved in intensive physical therapy that started after 6 months of age due to hemiplegia from a stroke (that did not affect her speech I might add). Regardless of all the attention and therapies that were showered on her she still regressed with complete loss of language after 15 months of age.


Oh dear-- I'm getting uncomfortable flashbacks reading the well-meaning but slightly lecturey posts from those promoting breast feeding. I used to make an ass of myself the same way-- I sympathize.

Here's the issue-- the whole "connection" thing is a big "duh", probably particularly in this forum. Yeah, yeah, yeah, got the love/closeness part down. Immune factors in breast milk. It does not make the essential difference. The essential difference is toxic exposure. Which can also come from breast milk if mom has a huge body burden, btw.

How's this-- three years breastfeeding both twins, co-sleeping for four years until I dislocated my shoulder from having my night-terrored daughter tucked permanently under one arm. No baby sitters, with the kids at all times-- classes, play dates, activities, house that looked like FAO Schwartz exploded in it, the most kisssed and cuddled kids on the face of the earth. Lost all language at a year after both spoke at around 7 months. Early Intervention was a joke. Absolutely nothing worked and no effort "stuck" until the diet and detox and nutrient replacement. Then the rate of learning and language acquisition exploded overnight.


Just chiming in again - upon second reading - it is about babies that go on to developing ASD (and the differences of their mothers).

BUT the feedback loop business STILL STANDS - as Mary attests to - The better our kids are - the better WE ARE.

When we learned to USE echolalia rather than hating echolalia - my son took a huge step up - GIVE ME MORE! Then, BOY was I having a great day/high as a kite. When we started MB12 shots - full fledged MOMMY ADDICTION. OMG - More! Happy! More! Joy! More! FEEDBACK LOOP GALORE. MORE! Give me more!

But, I still stand by it is NOT the chicken/egg quandry. These children were responding to intervention - their mother's had joy! These children somehow where on the upswing - though the feedback loop isn't like it is with an NT - they were responding.

I have many, many friends who do not have the response we've had. I don't know how they do it. I don't know how they don't crumble. I'm frustrated with my VHF kid? Our lack of feedback loop? Comparatively to many of you on this board, my sisters, this is so selfish of me. Please forgive me. If I'm frustrated - I cannot imagine.

This goes to me nearly clobbering someone the other week. Seriously. The person thought she was speaking to someone who would go right along with her (knowing my son). She is a Early Intervention City Preschool Type (social worker of some sort). We were discussing a fundraiser - that I attended - she did not - but she was one of the people thanked. We were discussing how great the four year old in question was doing - and how exciting it was (he was brought up on stage). THEN, she said "Well... I find the best parents have the children who do the best." OMG!!!!

I didn't just stare at her - I GLARED my most nasty, evil stare for 10 seconds - at least (my lips were undoubtedly curling - I must have looked like I was going to punch her. She, first was in shock - then, like "yeah, dish it out honey, I'll stand my ground") - and I just turned around and did a 180. OMG!!! (Our kids are in the same class - what joy).

When an outsider (meaning some random mother on the playground) says "Oh, you are such a wonderful mother, yada, yada." I take that as on opportunity to TEACH - not all kids are the same, the chromsome kids, the insult to their bodies/when/what, Head circumference kids, autoimmune - then of course - I'm privileged to have a situation where I can stay home all these years (and blog with you all... lol). I take it as a situation to explain - when you say I am a good mother - you are saying someone else is NOT a good mother. WHOA. They get it.

BUT an INSIDER saying this? Someone who SHOULD know about how different all our kids are? That this is not an equal game? They do not share the same potential trajectories. THIS is infuriating!

EVERYONE is a fabulous mother - I truly believe this. I believe everyone is doing their best - under their situation that only they know.

I certainly am better when my child is better - I'm practically a weather barometer (especially, years ago when he was younger). The more he gives, the more I can give. It is not just me pouring it on in a vacuum.

Pass the popcorn

"For example, if a child is playing with colored rings, the mother might say, "This is the green ring," thus teaching her child about his environment, Messinger says."

I think it's time for a Jim Carrey quote:

"How stupid do you think we are?"


Jessica, you hit the nail on the head.

Our insane society, in addition to demanding that we inject our babies with toxic chemicals, bombards us with "experts" who tell mothers to put their babies to sleep in another room, to let them cry themselves to sleep instead of comforting them, to feed them chemicals from a can (containing hormone- and antibiotic-laden cow's milk plus corn syrup plus chemicals) instead of the milk our bodies make for them, to wheel them around in strollers instead of holding them close.

And then society blames us for lack of maternal structuring???


Hello friends -

I haven't read this study; but, the area of 'environmental enrichment' is of potential interest to this discussion, and to everyone reading this post. It turns out, we have a great number of studies in the animal realm that show us with great consistency that an 'enriched' environment (usually one that introduced novel experiences for learning as opposed to a bare room), produces offspring with far different neurological profiles, measurable by both behaviors and brain structure. This is for real science that isn't going away.

Layer and regional effects of environmental enrichment on the pyramidal neuron morphology of the rat [Gelfo 2009]

Environmental enrichment improves response strength, threshold, selectivity, and latency of auditory cortex neurons [Engineer 2004]

There are tons, tons more. This doesn't mean that TV's or bad mothering causes autism. But, it might mean, turn off the TV!

- pD

Teresa Conrick

I was saving this for something else but it seems to fit the ridiculous psycho mumbo-jumbo of this piece of crap- see how medical issues become psychological--then psychiatric.

I would wonder if this was a glimmer of the future of more and more vaccines (thimerosal) on children with a poor immune system and/or a brief visit to PANDAS? Since this is APA doing the study- watch how they detour this illness to their domain. It's not mommy here,, but the wickedness of the child. Shades of fairy tales and Bruno Bullshit.

If anyone actually has the full version- let me know.

Note the year...and remember Kanner patient #11--:Elaine C. : Because of a febrile illness at 13 months, her increasing difficulties were interpreted as possible postencephalitic behavior disorder. For 18 months, she was given anterior pituitary and thyroid preparations. "Some doctors thought she was a normal child and said that she would outgrow this." A report, dated September 25,1970, says: "She has epileptic seizures occasionally of grand mal type and is receiving antiepileptics and tranquilizers."

Am J Psychiatry 100:387-396, November 1943
doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.100.3.387
© 1943 American Psychiatric Association


1 The Department of Pediatrics (Child Welfare Research Fund), Yale University School of Medicine, and the Children's Clinic, New Haven Hospital.

During the last two years twelve children were studied and treated for severe emotional disturbances following mild upper respiratory infections. An attempt has been made to describe the observed emotional disturbances characterized by compulsive, obsessive and phobic behavior in a setting of mild anxiety and depression. The initiating illness was variously diagnosed as "flu," "grippe," "cold," "sore throat." The febrile responses were low; the children did not appear acutely ill. During the respiratory infection a quasi-delirium, marked by apprehension without clouding of consciousness and of short duration, ushered in the anancastic behavior. Anancasms persisted for about six months. All children recovered within nine months after onset of illness. [SEE CHART II IN SOURCE PDF]. During the heights of the emotional illness the children were apprehensive, preoccupied, demanding, self-accusatory, labile in mood, very slightly retarded. Obsessive thoughts and compulsive activity was marked.

Specific etiological factors could not be determined. Attempts to correlate the illness with bacteriological agents, vitamin deficiency, and drug intoxications were unsuccessful.

Differential diagnoses between post-influenzal conditions, chronic encephalitis, deliria, anxiety states, manic-depressive phenomena and classic "compulsion neurosis" were considered.

A survey of the possibly pertinent literature did not reveal descriptions of this type of symptomatic neurosis in association with mild upper respiratory infections.

Emphasis was placed on the type of personality which succumbed to this illness. In all instances the children were subservient, docile, cowed by authority, perfectionistic in their strivings and meticulous in personal habits. As a group they were repressed and non-aggressive. Probably, because of these qualities, they were valued in society. Their conforming attitudes masked the underlying capacities for psychopathological manifestations.

From observations in intensive psychotherapy it seems justified to conclude that these children had difficulty in expressing appropriately their inherent hostile and aggressive thoughts and feelings. With illness these aggressive tendencies became manifest and dominant, and the patients attempted to cope with them by anancastic behavior. Although the initiating illness was an upper respiratory infection, the children stressed the fact of becoming sick and invariably interpreted the illness, per se, as "punishment" for some ununderstood "naughtiness" or "wickedness" with associated strong feelings of guilt. When the individual recognized his particular hostile-aggressive desires, and learned to channel them effectively, the anancasms disappeared. With the conclusion of therapy, these children ultimately reestablished themselves in their society better adjusted than prior to the onset of illness.


Thanks Mark for explaining stats to me. I have a mental disability, well maybe it is more like attention deficit when it comes to stats. I forget to pay attention ever since I found out that the college course is called statistics and ethics!


Taximom, I understand being a breastfeeding advocate but your statements again seem to imply that more moms breastfeeding lead to fewer children developing autism. It's not that easy.

Both of my children that have autism were breast-fed. One weaned at 20 months old, the second weaned at 30 months old. I'm a co-sleeping, baby wearing mama. Everything that is implied that would reduce the incidence of autism in my children. Like many things, it's anecdotal at best. By suggesting that breast-feeding would may such a difference, it's implying to some mommas that it's their fault, because they didn't breast-fed/ they used a stroller/ used a crib/ etc. Dissension in ranks doesn't help us or help our kids.


I can't believe people can make careers out of this kind of dicking around - especially when it is in full public view.

Heidi N

Shocking! This is what I would refer to as "missing the mark and the entire field". While some are wasting time and money, others are actually recovering children. Mine are doing great, and I hope many more children join them in recovery. Clue: rid toxins and pathogens.

Maurine Meleck

It's right up there with too much tv, too much rain and old fathers. Maybe even worse because it really sets the blame on moms again. There is no other way to interpret this stupid study.But you are right. The media will pick this up and print it like the story of the first man that went to the moon.


I'm as outraged by the implications as the rest of you.

And yet...

Studies show that breastfed babies have a significantly lower incidence of autism compared with formula-fed babies.

While I always assumed that that was purely a chemical thing, it does occur to me that nursing moms are more connected to their babies, both chemically (anybody remember how hearing your baby CRY triggers a let-down of milk?) and also because breastfed babies need to be fed at least twice as often.

It isn't a huge leap to realize that feeding a baby something out of a can (hello, pharm industry) that knocks him out for 4 hours instead of 60-90 minutes like breastmilk is going to result in less face time with mom.

For that matter, our society's acceptance of babies in cribs, strollers, and car seats rather than in mom's arms might have something to do with a society-wide lack of maternal sensitivity, not to mention the ubiquitous "let'em cry it out" mentality.

Yet, I see my colleagues, who formula-feed their babies, dump them in cribs and strollers, and let them cry all night--and their babies aren't autistic.

Then again, maybe those are the ones growing up and pointing their fingers at "refrigerator parents."

Jenny Webster

I have made many comments on this study all over facebook, so I will try something new here. First off, less "F" words :)
Second, let's think about this sentence, "For example, if a child is playing with colored rings, the mother might say, "This is the green ring," thus teaching her child about his environment, Messinger says."

Really? Really?
After my initial anger, after realizing that this is once again blaming "cold" mothers for their child's autism, it is this sentence that pisses me off the most.
Could it BE anymore condescending?

Do they really think that I NEVER showed my NON CONVERSANT autistic child a green ring and told him what it was. That I, or the "crap-ton in 10,000" other moms did not label every G.D. thing in the house trying to get our kids to speak?

If any of my children were neglected it was my SECOND child, b/c I was so BUSY with my first child! My SECOND CHILD who gets the SHAFT b/c of his autistic brother. The second child --the one with NO autism. The one who has no chronic illness, the one that I did NOT vaccinate, the one who gets very little of my time and attention --the one who spoke in full sentences at the age of 2.
The one who is in Kindergarten a year early and doing fine, the one who read a book to me tonight, sounding out all the unfamiliar words --he is the one who could complain that mommy isn't responsive enough.

This is pure f'in rubbish.



What I find most appalling is we apparently live in a universe where we need teams of doctors, scientists, researchers, therapists, special teachers, etc... to tell parents "how to talk to their children."

It's absurd. It's a wonder the human species survived so long without these researchers telling us saying "The ring is green!" will help "foster" language in a child, ASD or not. I'm being serious. WTF?

Don't you see something just a tad bit weird about that? How did you or I or our parents ever make it?

Mark Blaxill

Actually I have read the study. If you have read it and find it persuasive then I suggest you need a bit of experience in interpreting statistics. The sample size for the analysis demonstrating a connection between "maternal sensitivity" (necessarily a HUGELY subjective varialbe) and language improvement was exactly 11 cases (counting the points in Figure 2b, although the authors claim to have studied 12 ASD cases). Although the number crunching machinery allow the analysts to report a P value of <0.05, visual inspection of the graph will cause any thoughtful person to pause.

To illustrate, there's an old trick in the analysis business called the "thumb test." If you can cover up one data point with your thumb and have the correlation disappear, despite what the computer tells you, there's probably not a robust association. The thumb test absolutely kills the extremely tenuous argument in this paper for any "maternal sensitivity" effect (if you don't believe me, go get the paper and try it yourself).

So in addition to blaming parents for the severity of their child's autism (if not the autism itself), this worthless finding is based on the sloppiest analysis one could imagine. And this sort of stuff gets positive press coverage! The stupidity of orthodox autism scientists reaches new heights every day.


I can't believe that money is still being wasted on studies like this that take autism back to the dark ages! Meanwhile the rates of autism are skyrocketing seemingly because, according to this, mothers today just don't know how to talk correctly to their children! I thought we were beyond this kind of crap!


All of you who are so critical of and insulted by the study obviously haven't actually read it. Baker says emphatically that PARENTS DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM, and NEVER suggests that mothers of children with Autism are in ANY way inferior. The study merely suggests that there are things that parents can do to foster language development in children with autism. This is not to say that parents of non-verbal children are cold and insensitive; there are plenty of children with extraordinarily warm, loving parents who will never speak a word. What we know is that there are certain environmental factors (such as parent-child interactions) that influence children's language development, and that there are things that parents can do to help foster language in kids with autism.

I can't believe the number of people who seem to believe that they have no level of control over their child's developmental potential! When you talk to your child, engage your child, and support your child, you are undeniably influencing their development! Again, the study in NO WAY suggests that Autism is caused or worsened by parents, nor that it can be "cured" by a parent using sensitivity to "talk their child out" of autism; it simply suggests there may be certain parenting techniques that can help some (not all) children with Autism develop language. The rationale behind a study of this nature is not to blame parents for their children's problems, but to help develop training programs and therapies to assist in language development in children with Autism. Next time, before you go insulting the people who have devoted their careers to helping children with Autism, at least do them the courtesy of actually reading their articles, not just a 1 page synopsis with a biased lead in.


This is whats so wrong about the psychology world. They cant seem to accept that all of these conditions such as Autism, ADHD, etc etc are caused by biological underpinnings. They hang on to Psycho-Babble explanations such as "Maternal Sensitivity" and the affection of Mothers. This is ridiculous! How does Maternal Sensitivity effect Cancer rates? Why dont they Psycho-Babble that one? If all this BS were true, I for sure would be one profoundly autistic individual!! My mother was mean!! This is just more of the same Cathy Lord style Psycho-Babble trying to make their field seem relevant when its not. Stop wasting everyone's time and money to justify your paychecks. Time to move on to the year 2010.


The blatant lie shown in this kind of thinking is what led Dr. Bernard Rimland to figure out the first steps of how to actually save our children. So there may be a silver lining to this cloud.

Kim, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once said that one reason he started listening to us moms is that the tactics used by pharma reminded him of "Tobacco Science/Tobacco Law". Any chance you could get him to write an article for AOA and go through exactly how this applies, updated for the latest nasty attacks?

Teresa Conrick

This says to me that they are so afraid of the REAL aspects of autism - environmental toxins INCLUDING vaccines - that they are trying to go back in time and attempt to move the epicenter of autism from those very environmental factors - especially VACCINES - to the original "empty fortress" yet with a twist of "language issues" added.

Since NIH funded this ridiculous crap that is so UNSCIENTIFIC and completley IDIOTIC, I think we need to put the focus on them...or whom? Somebody )ies) are trying really hard to damage the environmental/vaccine connection ....and who might that be? Who approves studies for NIH?


When I'd say something to the effect, "This is the green ring," my child's response would be something along the lines of "Annnghhh!!!" and my "maternal sensitivity" would tell me that my interaction with my child was causing her something like frustration, maybe even pain, causing me something like frustration, even pain, and so after trying this balancing act of attempting to help my child learn to interact in a world that is a little deficient in understanding of communication deficiencies, sensory overload, etc, and also trying to avoid having her learn to associate pain with such interaction (which may be like trying to teach a child to avoid associating pain with walking on a bed of hot coals), to me an ounce of PREVENTION and/or REVERSAL research would be worth POUNDS.

Making pounds off of not preventing harm, not helping reverse harm, just studying it, is that what research is all about today?


The study isn't saying that a lack of interaction between a parent and child causes autism. It is saying that a child who is going to develop autism benefits from more verbal interaction from the parent and helps reduce language deficits.

It is basically saying that some children who are going to develop autism benefits from early intervention and may be able to retain language skills.


f*ck them. seriously.


What a total load of crap! They can't "waste precious resources on a vaccinated vs never-vaccinated study", which might actually be helpful, but they can fund BS studies like this one. Go figure!


Damn it! If I had only said "This is a green ring! This is a GREEN ring! This is a green ring!" more often, my child's chronic GI and inflammation issues would have gone away.

Coincidentally - and golly, here's a BIG coincidence - my non-verbal 3.6 year old starting talking 6 weeks exactly after beginning DMSA chelation.

Or, did I finally start saying, "This is a green ring!" at that age? Damn maternal sensitivity!


What? Are we in 1950?


This reminds me of when my neighbor commented that his wife's two brothers were gay because their mother "wore the pants in the family." I laughed thinking he was joking but he was serious. These studies are for stupid people like my neighbor. People who believe that strong mothers make their children gay will believe that insensitive mothers cause autism.


It does not matter what the actual study results are or how it was meant to be interpreted. That press release is not only an insult to all mothers of autistic children, it will affect the way autistic children are treated by the medical and educational communities. Words are powerful and those who publish them should think about their verosity.

Donna Kincanon


Your bias, as demonstrated by "But when researchers are looking for ways to understand how social interactions and parenting styles can influence the development of autism" speaks loud and clear that you don't get why this study offends so many parents (mothers). Mothers' communication styles do not "influence the development of autism." Autism is going to develop in a minor or significant way regardless of how much, how little, how effective, how ineffective, how appropriate, how inappropriate, etc... are the communication styles of the parent. To imply that we need to study why and where mothers go wrong or go right in affecting the development of autism and its severity in their children because that is where the problem seems to start is a mindset that keeps mothers in their place so that no one bothers to make the effort to research environmental, biological toxins.

Bettleheim's myopic interpretation of the behaviors of mothers of children with autism demonstrates the same lack of insight and mental effort contemporary psychologists put into their research. Focus on the behavioral manifestations of a biological disease process has inappropriately determined the research (psychology, a pseudoscience) that controls the science of autism.


......and maternal structuring, or how a mother engages and teaches her child. For example, if a child is playing with colored rings, the mother might say, "This is the green ring," thus teaching her child about his environment,

How many of us ....are guilty.... of not "calling out the green ring" for our child spinning in circles ???

A Mom

Ann, how does this study help to address neurotoxin poisoning in more than a generation of children?

How is putting blame, no matter how slight, for any of the developmental delays on the parents helpful, when the fact is the children were injected with neurotoxins and carcinogens?

It is full circle, alright. Full circle counter-clockwise.

Except for the AS salaries and grant monies that were awarded.

I am sick of the excuses given for millions of dollars being wasted while families are wasting away due to vaccine injury (autism). The fact that some of these studies are so degrading to parents who do everything they possibly can to help their children, with no help from AS, makes it so much worse than inexcusable.


The study was done by "cutting edge"
U of M "McScientists" with the help of some "McGradstudents."

The money they received was real, the Science they produce is bullshit.

Look for Dr. Fancy to cover this tomorrow and clear things up.....


At UW-Madison the 5,000-pound blonde gorilla is Dr. Morton Ann Gernsbacher.


She has a "no epidemic, not vaccines, no cure" mindset. Her daughter is on the spectrum. Articles online laud Gernsbacher's use of communications to "treat" nonverbal ASD kids.

How someone can deny the existence of medical reality is beyond me.


From "across the pond":- We've got boy/girl twins - our daughter is ASD (yes, that's right). We've got dated camcorder footage that, until they're a year old, shows two normally developing but different children. We're transferring formats from VHS to DVD and we're shortly due to watch the next videotape when we hope to see the point at which our beautiful responsive daughter "changes state" into autism. Wish us luck.

BTW, I'd found the autism/MMR connection by 1994 and didn't hear of Dr Wakefield until 1998. N.B. The MMR was introduced into the UK in 1988 and the first "autistic cluster" was diagnosed in the early 90s (you do the maths).


I'm with Mary-- I guess within five days of starting GF/CF, I became much more jointy-attentiony and feedback-loopy because my son spoke for the first time in two years at that point. He had a vocabulary of 300 words within three weeks.

What a radical change must have occurred as I spent 10 hours a week with my back turned to my kids in the kitchen making elaborate allergen-free meals from scratch and measuring and blending dozens of supplements in various suspensions. Time that used to be spent just trying to pry a single word from my nonverbal son and more than a single word from my semi-verbal daughter-- all of us operating on four hours sleep for two long years. I guess the sleep helped too-- the solid sleep that was brought on within days of the diet.

Come to think of it, if we're going to stick the old blame-mom tactic, it sort of looks like LESS attention from me did the trick. Boy, I must have had a really toxic influence on those poor kids since they were so much better off having me preoccupied elsewhere.

Mark Blaxill

I would argue that the mere funding of a study like this is an affront to parents. We dispensed with Freudian "environmental" theory long ago.


Funny how my son was verbal until he was approx. 15 months old. Since then, it's been ME doing all the talking. I speak to Riley like I would any other 6 yr old child. I speak to him like some day he may pop off and just answer me. As a matter of fact, I let everyone know that they are to talk TO Riley, not at him, or above him, around him, OR like he's not there. He is well aware of his surroundings and well aware when people are talking about him.
Good to know that the U of Miami APPROVES of my technics, being I've been doing this very thing for 6 yrs.


I have read the full study, and it's not perhaps as insulting as that short abstract makes it sound. It's focused on language development of kids who are identified early as being at risk of autism. Some of those kids were later diagnosed with autism ("emerging autism"). They watched the play interactions of mother and child for both the group that was at risk and the group that would later go on to be diagnosed. The lab experiment found that maternal sensitivity (rated by observers for issues such as responsiveness, respect for the child’s autonomy, positive regard for the child, structuring the play, and hostility) only influenced language development for the kids later diagnosed with autism. "Maternal sensitivity" is not presented in ANY WAY as a cause of autism, but rather as one of many "environmental" conditions that can affect kids with autism.

There are caveats everywhere in their article - it was a pilot study and the sample was small, after all. But when researchers are looking for ways to understand how social interactions and parenting styles can influence the development of autism, they have to start somewhere - and they have to get really specific about the things they are studying.

All that being said, it's not easy to get across that incremental nature of scientific discovery in a UPI wire report. And calling something "maternal sensitivity" really was a terribly bad idea on the part of the researchers.



Now we have no one to blame but ourselves!! Shame on me, shame on me for not seeing the solution.

Only if I would have known how to speak to my second child who has Autism because obviously I must have spoken to my first one who does not have autism the correct way.

Thats it Kim, pack up the website and let's just drown in our sorrows for not speaking to our children correctly. Obviously the 4 shots in one visit must not be the problem here or the flu shot 2 weeks after being hospitalized from the first four.

So thats it! I am calling Ed Arranga and tell him that AutismOne is just a sham and that we should all just fade away.........

Lisa @ TACA

This is one of the more ridiculous studies I have ever read! Just talk to your kid more, pay attention parents and they won't be autistic!

What a slap on the face to start your Monday morning. Shame on University of Miami!


Well, I guess I got a lot more sensitive once we treated our daughter's clostridia overgrowth. And I got a bit more sensitive once we started MB-12 shots, and wow! the sensitivity that followed DMSA. I'm with Henderson--it's all about the joint attention and the feedback loop.


What a crappy study! Sorry, but I spent so much more time interacting, playing and TALKING with my firstborn, ASD child than his NT younger brother, and guess what? He's got Autism! We did classes, we did playgroups...

My younger son, who was shafted out of lots of one-on-one and floor time type activities because I was driving around so much, trying to find doctors and therapists to help my older son, doesn't have Autism. They have the same obviously inferior mother. Hmm. Let's see. Oh yeah, I didn't have a mouth-full of leaky mercury fillings while gestating and nursing my second son, and I stopped vaccinating him after this 2 month appt. "just to be safe." I wonder.


Gurl - the 5% sibling rate is wrong and what they tell us. It really is 15+%. I've hooted while watching two different doctors (one a psychiatry jerk and the other a wonderful developmental pediatrician) present at a parent conference (thanking us for participating in their research - NOTE: we are in the sibstudies but they can't touch our DNA :) ).

The JERK 5% sibling rate. The Wonderful Doctor - 15-20%. The JERK pretended that he had never seen these rates before. The Wonderful Doctor and the JERK are research partners on the SAME papers. Oh my.

ANYWAY - at this very conference they also discussed how NOT NT our NT younger siblings are (for example, my younger NT has a 6 on his ADOS - that's NOT good for an NT. The range for ASD - 8=HF, 10=solid ASD, 12=the child is in BIG trouble. So you see a 6 isn't that good - He has articulation issues, OT issues, ADHD, anxiety, etc., etc.). The OLDER SIBS are just as NT as the rest of the population - and have a VERY different experience.

The YOUNGER SIBSexperience? GESTATIONALLY. Many of our younger siblings are BATHED in stress, rage, grief, etc. Check out some of the rat studies on stressed out pregnant rats and what that does to the babies. THEN CAP OFF THE EXPERIENCE POST BIRTH - a mother who is absorbed in her ASD child - so this poor baby is getting very divided, stressed out attention.

NOW, this is all on AVERAGE - statistically - and don't bother countering me - it really depends statistically on WHERE this child was (gestationally in time) in terms of the older child's story.

SO, I would stay FAR, FAR from this unvacinated group to prove our point re: vaccinations - it would only blow up in our faces.

Generally, our "NT" YOUNGER siblings are NOT as NT as the average family's NT children - and our younger ASD rate is HUGE as they, generally, have VERY hostile pregnancies.

And my poor damaged wee one will NEVER see a vaccination.

Donna L.

What a steaming pile of crap! If language development depended upon maternal sensitivity, then shouldn't all of the neurotypical siblings be nonverbal or have completely lost all language, due to mom's spending every single waking minute attempting to engage the child with autism? Furthermore, if verbal output depended upon the attention one receives, then shouldn't Autism Speaks have disappeared by now? We've been insensitive to them (ok, outright ignoring them) for years now, and it hasn't shut them up one bit.

Shame on you, Autism Speaks, UM, and the Marino Foundation, for taking us right back to 1949.


Since they've decided to completely ignore vaccines, and haven't found anything credible to blame autism on, they have decided to come full circle.

It's the refrigerator mothers! (And also mothers who are too old).

Diane Farr

Why don't they just say it! "If you are a female, white, college educated and upper-middle class that you double your chances of having an autistic child."


OMG! How about the infant is lacking joint attention - and the mother isn't getting the positive feedback loop? DUH?!?

I'm looking right now for articles I remember on that relate to this one - but I'm so enraged, I'm sending this one out right now:

The first: that by the time a NT child initiates - I can't remember - I think multiple-multiple thousands - I'm not going to type in the number I remember, as I don't want it misquoted - a NT toddler initiates multiple thousands upon thousands of conversations before they are 18m. MY very HF child initiated ZERO. ME? I NEVER stopped initiating. I spoke non-stop doing exactly what the city's speech therapist told me to do. "You are coloring with the BLUE crayon," "Child's Name is jumping." "Thank you sweetie." Result: thousands of TACTS - zero MANDS - echolalia ("thank you sweetie" in reverse), first third person speech, then entrenched pronoun reversal. OH - and his first 20 words - all the colors - I mean ALL - the 6 rainbow, black, white and GRAY!

HE'S deficient in joint attention - it wasn't because I wasn't an amazing mother.

The second article I'm going to find: something about mother's having a more natural love-connection with their NT children - again the feedback loop. NOT saying we don't LOVE our autism children - but have a more natural feedback loop with our NTs.

The third one: that a great deal of us (mothers) suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, etc. DUH?!? Well, of course we are depressed!

What IDIOTS!!!!

They were NOT videoing normal mothers - they were videoing mothers with worry/horror/fear that something A) MAY be wrong with their child or B) the even more horrifying reality - that something actually IS wrong with their child. How carefree and natural and "perfect" do you think the mothers' play would be. @#$%&%@ YOU!!!


This one is soooooo simple - they are such idiots. It is NOT a chicken/egg question!

The child's autism predates the mother's response - NOT the other way around. I was OVERJOYED to be a mother - I WAS an amazing mother - now I am a shattered vessel of the mother I once was.

Then add in the vaccine horror on top of my already very worried state (my kid was both - ASD - THEN vaccine injured on top of it - imagine: me screaming in HORROR!!!!). Imagine how well I played the next day (while weeping).



What about those of us who were told, "don't worry, he has a very verbal older sister." Guess I was sensitive enough for her. When my son was a toddler the only time he stopped moving was when he was asleep. If I had been with him in an enclosed room where he was safe, even with well-rested researchers peering in, I might have taken the opportunity to curl up and take a nap. If I had any money to send the UW alum fund, they wouldn't be getting it.


Love always helps but C'MON. There hasn't been an epidemic of lovelessness. How is that children spoke on time during the era of child labor?? During war and famine? I'm sick to death of these ahistorical bullshit peddlers.

But pulling apart all the ways in which mom-blaming is intrinsic to autism therapy and the practice of child psychology in general is tricky. Bits and pieces of that philosophy are dug in deep. Part of the problem is relying on Skinner, who's just dead wrong about the origin of language capacity. Human beings are not tabula rasa on which language is imprinted. Language is innate AND learned. And if something innate is damaged, this means physical brain damage.

Noam Chomsky, the Einstein of linguistics, went up against Skinner on this point-- Chomsky argued for innate capacity coupled with learning, Skinnner for imprinting only.

Shifting ABA to include a philosophy of innate language loss/physical healing along with "rebuilding brain capacity" could not only revolutionize the practice and increase the understanding that damage to the brain is involved in autism, but this would also collapse the platform of the "mom-blamers".

I think it would also force more empathy towards children.

Kathy Blanco

As a pioneer mom, (oldest is 28), I do believe that shfiting the blame to mom is a way for them to push it into the psychological disorder category. I beg to differ. My son suffered, and my other daughter severe vaccine injury, palpitable and documented injury, and had they reacted within three days would have surely been on the VAERS list (eleven days and two weeks here). I find no compassion for this diSEASE, not DISORDER, DISEASE. I find us as predjudiced as an AIDS patient in the first few years of it's discovery with large falsehoods being paraded about. Our kids are hurting the national psychee. We are reminding them, that our kids are expressing canary bird like stature...that they are not surviving under this vaccine policy, pollution, food supply, and other ioatragenic recommendations and mandations, which are being held over our heads. And... aren't people getting the media "doth protest too much" and aren't they getting that finally, the world is not always truthful, and upheld by righteous and purposeful truths or motives aka the powerful money and root of all evil stuff? Is it not time, IMHO, to hurt them where it would hurt the most...that is, to stop the perception of safety, at all costs, by not being complicent or workable, but to refuse all vaccines at this point? Haven't we driven the toyota car over the cliff enough? When will it be finally unacceptible to have acceptible losses?

Studies like this, don't help us. They hurt us. They don't deserve to be funded. But, GRANTED, many mothers suffer from depression, is that before or after autism? I can honestly say, I had a smidge before...but do I BLAME MYSELF FOR THAT? NO, it's biomedical. It's becuase I TOO was a canary bird, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree with no chest and or brow beating here. TOXINS, INFECTIONS, cause these things, NOT YOUR CHOICE. When chelated, I had just as much mercury in my body as my kids, if not more. My thyroid was out of whack because of gluten. These things matter in terms of serotonin. Our kids didn't CHOOSE to stop talking or never talk? There is a reason for all behaviors, all physical brain trauma is expressed differently, therefore no cookie cutter autism. And if Jenny thinks her son has LKS, with his autism, is that a choice? LKS is a seizure disorder which happens mostly at night, wipes out language and previous day what you learned. This is the same thing that happens in ALZHEIMERS. Brain dysfunction is explainable.

I wish we would only fund vaccine studies, immune function, gastro function, thyroid function, how we deal with metals, toxins, etc...infections/inflammation/metabolic, etc...that is worthy of study, not this CRAP they call science.


"Language problems are among the most important areas to address for children with autism, because they represent a significant impairment in daily living and communication,"

Idiots... The language problems are a side effect, not the root cause. This is obvious to anyone who has looked at any significant number of children with autism (with our without having a sheepskin).


Again........... I don't understand why people are not screaming louder about their child's toxicities and metabolic disorders. The ones that are toxic need to show the proof to insurance companies and demand coverage. Once this happens, the insurance companies will want to make sure the toxicities stop so that they don't have to pay for it. Autism is a word they are using to keep the people down. Most of our kids are not autistic, they are poisoned, and the proof needs to be revealed. We did just that. We proved our kid was toxic. They tried to prove he was not and in the process, they proved twice more that he was indeed poisoned with mercury.... NOw we are covered.



I think that there is one big point you are missing in all of this:

We are talking about a "sibs study", whose subject population is charachterized by two things highly relevant for us:

1. an exceptionally high autism rate (>5%)
2. an exceptionally high unvaccinated rate.

so many parents blame vaccines, or just suspect vaccines - and dont vaccinated subsequent siblings. and many parents don't suspect vaccines and do vaccinate subsequent siblings. the percentages of both autism and vaccination avoidance in those siblings are so high that you don't need a big sample for a vaxed/unvaxed study with statistically significant results. It's the easiest thing to measure, and they have already had enough babies in those studies to produce meaningful results.

Donna Kincanon


I don't have access to the "actual results of the study," just the abstract summary and the referenced press release. Evidently, you have read the study paper and can offer more insight to the study conclusion than what is offered at pubmed.

From pubmed abstract:
"Maternal sensitivity at 18 months predicted expressive language growth from age 2 to 3 years among children with emergent ASD only. Findings underscore the importance of understanding parent-child interaction during this key period in the development of autism symptomatology."

Just how can one one interpret this and not feel the study is blaming the mother? I am sincerely asking you to comment and explain the interpretation.

Thank you.

Jodi O'Connell

I would really like to know how any of these studies can explain my little girl's mercury toxicity and the viral titers that show she processed only one of her vaccinations appropriately. Why are they not studying this in children who regress? Wouldn't it be helpful to know in the grand scheme of things if kids are processing the vaccines appropriately? I'm sure that there are more children out there with similar test results who could be studied....Seems like a much more valuable use of research dollars to me, but I'm just a mom, and according to this study, not a very good one.

Or maybe it's the refrigerator's fault.

With all the tax money we've shelled out for autism resesarch, can't we get a refrigerator dad theory for once? Does it always have to be refrigerator moms? How about refrigerator pets? Cats can be aloof, you know. I've even gotten the cold shoulder from a hamster. I'd like to see autism research dollars devoted to documenting the impact of refrigerator rodents on children with autism.
Alert Yale. I think they'd do it.


Jack's dad: "I guarantee there are alot of other parents who suspected vaccines that never heard of Dr. Wakefield." You are so right!!! That would make things so nice and easy for them, wouldn't it? But really it comes back to the fact that "the problem is the problem."


U Miami,U. Wisconsin-Madison and Autism Speaks can f-off! What a pile of garbage and what a giant waste of money. You guys deserve better than this!


My son was involved in a duke study that has since moved to U of M. I'm guessing I was probably insenstive to the researchers after answering the same stupid question on all the diagnostic tests at school, the neurologist, developmental ped, teacch, and duke researchers. I'm sorry if i wan't suzy cheerleader while having the same conversation over and over and over again w all these professionals. That was back when I thought these "professionals" gave a da@* and would have somehat interested in helping me help my son or in the very least trying to further real research. My conclusion is that it is the "professionals" who are at best insensitive and unresponive to our children. My son is now recovered - so you think any of these "professionals" have expressed any interest in him and how he got better. NO! And they have been made aware of his amazing progroess. They can go shag themselves.


sad that there are so many who are misinterpreting this study. how many have read the actual results of the study rather than this press release?

Mark Blaxill

Some people to thank for this research.

Acknowledgments. This study was funded by NIH grants R01HD047417, T32 HD007473 (University of Miami), and T32 HD07489 (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Autism Speaks, and the Marino Autism Research Institute. We wish to thank the students and staff of the UM Sib Study for their efforts with data collection and management and Whitney Gealy, Silviana Guerra, Maria Kimijima, and Katelyn Vertucci for their superb rating of maternal sensitivity. We thank Rachel Fenning, Naomi Ekas, and Lisa Ibanez for their input on drafts of the manuscript and we are especially grateful to the families for their participation.

Stagmom, "The never learned to ask."

Stupid me! I should have TAUGHT Bella to ask to go to the hospital when she broke her arm in two places, but didn't have the ability to tell me, instead, waiting until I felt three elbows jutting out of her skin. Please, someone hand me a two by four so I can whack myself in the head for being so stupid and unmotherly!


This is exactly what the psychiatrist who diagnosed our son with autism told me when I argued with her that he didn't have echolalia or autism: "he only talked so well and did so well because of how I worked with him. He would only continue to degenerate between the ages of 2 and 3 and I was lucky I brought him there to bring to my attention all the further work I would need to do and hire others to do.

I guess it was my fault he showed immediate echolalia because I did teach him to repeat every word I said until his brain and mouth caught up and he could talk all on his own (which he does now. I wish I could un-teach him a few things, such as "I don't want to watch this f'in movie again" I'm pretty sure he learned this on his own!)

I guess my older kids are lucky I was so busy raising twins to pay any attention to them or teach them to talk.

What I don't know about this study is whether they compared a control group of mothers engaging their children for an equal amount of time doing a non-verbally structured activity such as cooking. Because I taught my son to talk AND cook, and I can see how if you didn't either of those things it would be the mom's fault if the outcome was less than positive (as if!) Did they study the moms who painstakingly taught the child their letters, numbers, colors, and words and watched that knowledge disappear, just like the word mom did for my son for a whole year?

If you continue to look for answers from the profession that thinks our children have a mental illness, you'll be the one who ends up crazy!

Janine Culotta

"Mothers do too much for their Autistic/Aspie children"..opposite of the refrigerator mom..so that every need was met..."maybe they never learned to ask"..I got that one,too.


I like Chris O'connell Comment.
I think me spending every day from 0- 4 reading, feeding, playing,painting,singing was not enough-I should have kept it up till 1 am wich was his usual time he fell asleep. My bad!

I also have senstive school Old bitty Spec.ed lady to deal with that said he should be Independent as new student in 3rd gr-no aide-no supervision.?This world is whacked when u need the STATE involved to get Basic help for our kids.
Ahh-the Joys of life.


How does this explain my NT son? If we do not have "sensitivity" (please someone explain the measurement technique for that) why are we working so hard to improve our children's health? If we lacked sensitivity wouldn't we just shrug our shoulders and move on? This is bs.

Jack's Dad

Has anyone noticed the new media pitch from the medical establishment that's coming through in news reports? The whole anti-vax crusade is largely rooted in a "controversial British study that suggested a link between MMR-autism (Wakefield)."

This way, now that the study has been disproven, we can all move ahead and get past this nonsense. Funny, I had no idea who Andrew Wakefield was when I witnessed two of my three kids tank after vaccines.

I guarantee there are alot of other parents who suspected vaccines and never heard of Wakefield. But of course the media is taking this angle hook, line and sinker.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)