Dachel Media Review: Infant Study Everywhere
By Anne Dachel
Read Anne's comments and view the links after the jump.
Nov 6, 2013, NEW STUDY ON SIGNS OF AUTISM IN INFANTS -- LA Times, NY Times, ABC News, NY Daily News
Nov 5, 2013, Huffington: When Skepticism Becomes Denial: The Unholy Alliance Between Science Denial Movements
Within hours yesterday news of a new study about seeing the signs of autism in two month old babies appeared in lots of places in the news.
LA Times: Tracking babies' eyes, scientists find signs of autism in 2-month-olds
"Children with autism spectrum disorders usually aren’t diagnosed until they are at least 2 years old, but a new study finds that signs of the condition are apparent as early as two months after birth.
"Researchers focused on babies’ ability to make eye contact with caregivers, since lack of eye contact is one of the hallmarks of autism. Among typical children, interest in the eyes increased steadily with age. But for children with autism, interest in the eyes waned starting between 2 and 6 months of age.
"By the time they reached their second birthdays, levels of eye fixation among children with autism were only half as high as levels seen in typically developing children, according to a report published Wednesday by the journal Nature.
"Though researchers expected to see a difference between the two groups of kids, they were surprised that the infants who were later diagnosed with autism started out developing just like their peers. That suggests that 'some social adaptive behaviors may initially be intact” in babies’ brains, which would “offer a remarkable opportunity for treatment,' the researchers wrote."
NY Times
ABC News
NY Daily News
My questions for the researchers is, why did these infants start out with normal vision? What caused them to stop making eye contact? Will this be used a way to disprove the claim by so many parents that at 18 months or 2 years of age, their children regressed into autism? Are we supposed to believe that they just missed the signs when they were infants? Notice there was no mention of starting vaccines at the time kids are born and what the accumulative effects of that might be.
Huffington
"5. The growing movement, even by very well-educated persons in first-world nations, to block vaccinations of their children, in spite of the fact that claimed links to autism or other childhood medical conditions have been soundly and repeatedly refuted."
I had a number of comments that I was going to post, but I was only allowed to put one up.
Suddenly this line appeared with my comment: "Due to the potentially sensitive nature of this article, your comment may take longer to appear publicly"
My comment is still on the story, but I can't add any.
I notice that in point #5 about the controversy over vaccines and autism, there was a link to the Centers for Disease and Control. Those are the people who run the vaccine program. What else would we expect them to say?
Actually, I think one of mine who was born with symptoms didn't give good eye contact. But, he had poor sucking and other symptoms straight from birth. My other ones gave great eye contact with NO symptoms until age 1 1/2. Unfortunately, those who have not lived autism in real life will believe any study they are told to believe.
Posted by: Heidi N | November 08, 2013 at 09:32 PM
Vaccine Information,
Indeed I was aware of the previous science denying smoking/cancer link, but you provided excellent details. Great post -- no wonder they didn't accept it!
Greg
Posted by: Greg | November 08, 2013 at 09:00 PM
To Truthseeker2, That is a very good point. Dont forget to add in all the mercury from the fish the mom eats and the dental amalgams in her mouth and the mercury in the air she breathes.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | November 08, 2013 at 08:11 PM
"That suggests that 'some social adaptive behaviors may initially be intact” in babies’ brains, which would “offer a remarkable opportunity for treatment,' the researchers wrote."
IMO any "researcher" who makes such a statement or who concurs with such idiocy should have his high school diploma pulled. "some social adaptive behaviors may initially be intact” how about assuming EVERYTHING is intact until CHANGED by ENVIRONMENTAL factors since genetics is NEVER responsible for an epidemic?
The "treatment" in its best and earliest form is PREVENTION. DO NOT VACCINATE.
I now see how easy it is to get political "science" to accept the most totally irrational and idiotic ideas.
Posted by: Lou | November 08, 2013 at 07:26 PM
"At age two months they have likely already received, dtap, hib, hepb..and more..so YES diagnose them and stop the maiming!!"
For god's sake YES!
Let us not forget the billions of mercury atoms their mother is encouraged to have injected when their child is a fetus weighing 12 grams.
Please learn to diagnose autism and "vaccine" damage.
http://healthyprotocols.com/2_Dr_Moulden.htm
Posted by: Lou | November 08, 2013 at 06:37 PM
"My questions for the researchers is, why did these infants start out with normal vision? What caused them to stop making eye contact?"
The autistic child is coping with his "vaccine damage" as best he is able. Inside our vaccine damaged child is an intelligent human doing the BEST he can with the adverse conditions we have FORCED upon him with NEEDLES et al. His vision is directed in the direction HE CAN BEST SEE YOU. We have corrupted his normal vision.
“Autistic children try to make sense of the world around them by lining up toys, sorting by color. They have to "see" objects by adding boxes together, thus "thinking in pictures. Their avoidance of eye contact is an attempt to get light to land off center in the retina where they have some rod function. Suddenly mother’s touch feels like sand-paper on their skin. Common sounds become like nails scraped on a blackboard. We think they cannot abstract, but we are sinking these children into an abstract painting at 18 months of age and they are left trying to figure out if the language they are hearing is connected to what they are looking at.” Mary Megson, MD. Note I sure hope there is a hell because there is going to be a whole raft of “medical authorities” et al sent there
http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/autism-and-vaccinations
Posted by: Lou | November 08, 2013 at 06:19 PM
If they notice early hepb damage, such as losing eye contact, this should be the red flag for that child. That child should not receive further vaccines. This one "sign" could protect them from becoming fully autistic by stopping any further vaccinations. At age two months they have likely already received, dtap, hib, hepb..and more..so YES diagnose them and stop the maiming!!
Posted by: barbara j | November 08, 2013 at 04:00 PM
Good for you to post your excellent comment, here, Vaccine Information!
"When Skepticism Becomes Denial" writers, Bailey and Borweins have tried to appropriate/twist some issues inappropriately to make some point against any who question corporate/biased research. As well as ignoring the fact that it was AMA docs that actively supported the tobacco industry, they also used the issue of climate change as being a public denial issue when Canadian scientists recently complained of the federal government blacklisting and trying to muzzle them over reporting to media about issues on environment! Bailey and Borweins are cowards as well as manipulators!
And those jerks at Scienceblogs cry about censorship of comments.
Posted by: jen | November 08, 2013 at 03:35 PM
Wouldn't post my comment
"This article does not address that the consensus is not always correct. In 1930 Dr. Alton Ochsner properly linked smoking to lung cancer and heart diseases, at a time when the consensus considered smoking to be a healthful activity.
http://www.ochsner.org/ochsner_cancer_institute/cancer_services_about_history/
Dr. Ochsner was ridiculed when he presented his findings at the AMA convention. The AMA endorsed smoking, with the famous “More doctors Smoke Camels” ads and such for another 25 years, and didn't aggressively oppose smoking for another decade, as Big Pharma ad revenue in JAMA supplanted Big Tobacco advertising.
http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images.php?token2=fm_st001.php&token1=fm_img0002.php&theme_file=fm_mt001.php&theme_name=Doctors%20Smoking&subtheme_name=More%20Doctors%20Smoke%20Camels
All during this time properly credentialed scientists in the pay of big tobacco created study after study “proving” that tobacco was not harmful or addictive. At the same time they were manipulating the chemicals in the cigarettes to speed and increase the nicotine uptake and response.
So are the authors wishing that Ochsner's challenge to the consensus of 1930 been not given any weight?
Please visit the Safra Center for Ethics to see all of the areas that are compromised today, and ask yourself who should be the arbiter of the “truth”? Captured regulatory agencies relying on corporate research? The discouraging cover story right now is “ Institutional Corruption and the Pharmaceutical Industry”. http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab
Corruption is pervasive everywhere.
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/dfs/osfm/boards/specific-meetings/j-fleming/doubt-is-their-product-97-03.pdf
Posted by: Vaccine Information | November 08, 2013 at 01:34 PM
"Politically sensitive nature of this topic" = they are controlling the published response to the propaganda
Posted by: Linda | November 08, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Great comments TannerDan and Jen! Funny they list 'smoking/cancer' as denialist science, yet in the past the opposite was true. 'Corrupt' science was saying there was no link (in fact I believe this was the very own CDC's position) and those that opposed were the 'cranks' and 'quacks'. How things have conveniently changed .....HMMM!!
Posted by: Greg | November 08, 2013 at 06:52 AM
"Politically sensitive nature of this topic" simply means that mass poisoning of American children with toxic vaccines serves some kind of politics. Let's guess - which? It is the politics of govt corruption by pharma cartels, politics of money and politics of planned destruction of the US by biological degradation of Americans, which has already happened. Shame for Huffpost for serving this purpose and for allowing pharma terrorists to published their propaganda in their paper.
Posted by: no-vac | November 08, 2013 at 04:32 AM
Anne, I got the same lame comment about the "politically sensitive nature of this topic"on Bailey and Borweins article, "When Skepticism becomes Denial." I'll post my comment here instead in case it's just way too "insensitive" for them:
'I personally do not believe that the science that says vaccines are completely unconnected to autism is all that sound. The largest, most recent twin study shows us that environmental factors are more important than previously thought. On the other hand, studies such as Madsen/ Thorsens are so poorly done as to be fraudulent (the many flaws have been covered by other researchers such as in Cochrane reviews). There are many researchers whose science shows there is cause for concern (Shaw, Tomljenovitch, Leong, to name just a few).
Quite frankly I think what is happening is that people are joining together and seeing that, hey, if this happens in this field (medicine, say) then maybe it's happening in others (food safety). Until integrity is restored this will continue and rightly so. The politicians need courage alright- courage to deal with the lobbyists.
Posted by: jen | November 07, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Tanners dad; great comment! Love it!
Posted by: Hera | November 07, 2013 at 09:10 PM
I added my two cents to the Huffpo garbage article:
Speaking only as a lowly College Educated parent that saw his son regress into Autism after Vaccine injury, I have a right to ask for more explanation and answers without being attacked. I just do not see how we can gloss over the more than 60 studies done independently away from pharmaceutical influence that show a connection between Autism and vaccines.
Posted by: TannersDad Tim | November 07, 2013 at 08:15 PM
If anybody denies science, reason, experience, common sense, and ethics it is the CDC-pharma mafia, responsible for devastating two generations of American children and for ruining American future. No nation can survive without healthy young generations. These CDC-pharma people should face the Nuremberg II trial for their crimes against humanity.
Posted by: no-vac | November 07, 2013 at 06:46 PM
Due to flu shot mandates being the norm now for pregnat women and of course the hep b vaccine dose from birth, would we not expect autism to present sooner?
Posted by: Truthseeker2 | November 07, 2013 at 06:33 PM