Simon Baron-Cohen and Autism - 70 Years Later and Psychiatry Still Gets It Wrong
Protocol 007: FDA Document Supports Claim of Mumps Vaccine Fraud

Dachel Media Update: Back To School, Blood Test

Online newsBy Anne Dachel

Read Anne's comments after the jump.

 
August 7, 2013, Gainesville (FL) Sun: Immunizations, physical exams are required, too
 
August 7, 2013, Fox Kansas City (MO): Not too late for back-to-school immunizations

August 7, 2013, Daily Mail: Simple blood test could detect autism in one-year-olds after breakthrough in detecting the condition's genetic 'signature'
 
August 7, 2013, UK Guardian: Ambitious aims: the international push to understand and treat


Gainesville (FL) Sun http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130807/GUARDIAN/130809660/1109/sports?Title=Immunizations-physical-exams-are-required-too#fb-root
Pat Hughes, supervisor of health service for Alachua County Public Schools: "Some parents don't want to get certain vaccines because they think they can cause autism. Vaccines do not cause autism. It's totally not true."
 
The Sun did note that parents can file a religious exemption.  I posted 12 comments.  It's the same tired line: "Vaccines do not cause autism," when clearly they do.
 
Fox Kansas City (MO) http://fox4kc.com/2013/08/07/not-too-late-for-back-to-school-immunizations/
"That study found that nearly half of all Americans between two and 24 years old aren't getting the recommended vaccinations. But it's Missouri and Kansas law to make sure your children are up to date before school.
"Health experts say one reason many parents don't get their kids shots is because of concerns that vaccinations aren't safe or can lead to health issues like autism. But they say those concerns stem from studies found online that aren't correct and that immunizations have helped eliminate serious illnesses that plagued our society not long ago."
Studies show no link just haven't convinced parents.  I posted comments.
 
Daily Mail

"A simple blood test that could detect autism in children as young as 12 months could be available within two years, a leading researcher is to announce today.

"Professor Eric Courchesne will tell the Asia-Pacific Autism Conference in Adelaide that he has made a breakthrough in the detection of the genetic 'signature' of autism.

"'This is going to lead to much better treatments at a much earlier stage and a large percentage of children having an excellent outcome,' said Prof Courchesne."

Britain addresses autism: Doing brain scans and blood tests to cover up an iatrogenic disaster.

UK Guardian

"A research collaboration called EU-AIMS will scan hundreds of brains and could lead to the first drug treatments for autism."

"The goal is to scan the brains of 450 people with autism and 300 controls using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Nothing on this scale has been attempted before, and the hope is that it will pave the way for new treatments for autism and facilitate earlier diagnosis."

Personally, I think this is more smoke and mirrors designed to make it seem like experts are earnestly looking for answers. Autism is a disorder that officially has no known cause or cure. There's nothing a mainstream doctor can tell a new mother so that her child that was born healthy and is developing normally doesn't also end up on the autism spectrum by age two. As of March, 2013, the official autism rate in the U.S. is one in every 50 children and one in 31 among boys alone.

How bad do the numbers have to get before we do something else besides focus on making the drug industry richer?  I posted several comments.

Comments

John Stone

Why do they have a "genetic signature" at one and not at birth?

Benedetta

Oh, for heaven sakes; other articles uses words like gene expression - I guess hoping the general public just catches the word gene.

Gene expression as in if you poison some one certian genes turns on.

That is if you poison someone the body's immune system tries to protect itself in certian ways.

Other articles use the words mutation.

Yes, mutation come about by damage.

Benedetta

It does not say what they are testing in the blood test - that I could see. What are they testing for?
Hmmmm it could be a T cell but they would just rename it 666Gmd or something.

Anne Dachel

And I wonder why the work of Burbacher and Shaw is ignored.

How the media can be so biased is beyond belief.

A.

Jen

Dr. Singh's study is interesting but is from 2002. Why are we just hearing more about it now? Of course, there should have been loads more studies done as follow up but have there been? Oh yeah, that would be around the time the witch hunt was in full force.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)