It's an interesting possibility. I have a question though.

I have a set of twins, one is autistic, and the other isn't.

Makes me wonder if the study ever included twins? How is it that this could happen to one fetus and not the other while in the womb?

Autism rates have increased dramatically since the introduction of vaccinations. The rate now is approximately 1 in 200 whereas in the early 70's it was approximately 1 in 2000. If a person were to examine groups such as Quakers and Amish whom do not vaccinate their children, they will find that the disease is virtually non-existent in these communities.

The court system has on three separate occasions ruled in favor of the vaccinations and state they can establish no link between Autism and vaccinations, yet the evidence just in the Amish community screams out "hey look at me."

This alone though does not fit into any conspiracies that I am aware of or subscribe to. It just doesn't make sense to cause Autism in children. There is no apparent benefit to TPTB. It will not control population, it will not open up any sort of cash flow in fact quite the contrary is true, it costs more money. The only apparent beneficiaries are the pharmaceuticals. Why would they do this or allow it to continue? That is the million dollar question, it does not appear to serve any notable purpose although I am sure that there is something somewhere. Anyone have any ideas?

OK...I think I am missing something. Can someone clarify this for me please? They studied the blood of women with autistic child(ren) and found there to be antibodies against fetal brain tissue.

Then, they took this SAME blood and injected it into mice and found they bore autistic-like mice babies.

Wouldn't it be more likely that the antibodies developed because the woman's baby was autistic? In other words, the mother's body senses something is "wrong" with the fetus' brain tissue and THEN develops the antibodies to try and "fight" it.

This would explain the issue with one twin born w/ autism and the other not. If the antibodies were there to begin with, they would attack BOTH fetuses. If they were there AFTER there was a "problem", they would only "attack" the fetus with autism. Further, once antibodies are present they don't just disappear. And woman who have one autistic child can have many more without autism...so where did the antibodies go?

Definition:
n. pl. an·ti·bod·ies
A Y-shaped protein on the surface of B cells that is secreted into the blood or lymph in responseto an antigenic stimulus, such as a bacterium, virus, parasite, or transplanted organ, and that neutralizes the antigen by binding specifically to it; an immunoglobulin.

If this article is correct, then wouldn't they have to change the entire definition of antibody???

As someone with so called "mild" autism (Asperger's Syndrome), that is very interesting.

I believe that some autism is caused by cavitation induced by ultrasounds.

Cavitation is the creation of vacuum bubbles which implode.

Cavitation dissolves the propellers on oil tankers.
Cavitation is the way that ultrasonic cleaners work.

Cavitation is documented to occur within the human body during the use of ultrasounds.

Some autistics have bubble shaped areas of the brain missing, like swiss cheese. It is only this class of autism which I am referring to.

The brain is built on a scaffolding of microscopic hair like bone structures. If this scaffolding collapesed due to cavitation, then the brain cells could not fill those voids.

Has anyone done a correlation study between the use of ultrasound and autism?

Probably not, there would be a lot of money pusing in the wrong direction for against that study. The industry would not like that line of reasoning, in the same way that chest xrays cause cancer and the probability of cancer goes up dramatically with each xray, but they are still done routinely.

The difference is that the Xray Cancer relationship is well understood, just ignored because the diagnostic tool is so profitable and useful.

I think the point about cause and effect, where the antibodies may be a respone to the initial problem is interesting. Surely the antibodies are targeted, that is how they work. So what are they targeting on?

Not the mothers brain cells, not the other twin's brain cells. However I find it hard to believe the body would attack only the brain of the baby if this were a natural response to cause miscarriage.

It seems reasonable that there is something unique about the one foetus which causes a negative response. What is the something different? What caused that?


[edit on 19-4-2009 by Cyberbian]

Originally posted by lpowell0627
OK...I think I am missing something. Can someone clarify this for me please? They studied the blood of women with autistic child(ren) and found there to be antibodies against fetal brain tissue.

Then, they took this SAME blood and injected it into mice and found they bore autistic-like mice babies.

Wouldn't it be more likely that the antibodies developed because the woman's baby was autistic? In other words, the mother's body senses something is "wrong" with the fetus' brain tissue and THEN develops the antibodies to try and "fight" it.

This would explain the issue with one twin born w/ autism and the other not. If the antibodies were there to begin with, they would attack BOTH fetuses. If they were there AFTER there was a "problem", they would only "attack" the fetus with autism. Further, once antibodies are present they don't just disappear. And woman who have one autistic child can have many more without autism...so where did the antibodies go?

Definition:
n. pl. an·ti·bod·ies
A Y-shaped protein on the surface of B cells that is secreted into the blood or lymph in responseto an antigenic stimulus, such as a bacterium, virus, parasite, or transplanted organ, and that neutralizes the antigen by binding specifically to it; an immunoglobulin.

If this article is correct, then wouldn't they have to change the entire definition of antibody???

There could be a few explanations to what your saying. I will try to offer one. We are dealing with more than just the body's immune system here. One must always consider the power of the brain and its mission. The human brain is nothing more than a problem solver, it works for the conscious and sub-conscious mind. I will try to explain this; The subconscious mind says "hey my fingers are cold" the brain then tells the heart to increase rate and blood flow; problem/solution. You are thinking about your father, a visual image from memory is provided; problem/solution. This also works within the body only these are controlled by the involuntary functions of the brain. An example of this is, the body is weak and detects a foreign substance (transplant, virus, bacteria) and it produces the antibodies that it thinks will defend against the intruder, this is done through a record kept within the cell structures of previous events. Kind of like the police looking for known accomplices. Unfortunately the body's system is not effective against every intruder and this may be one of those cases. If this woman's body is producing these antibodies and it is not affecting her own brain, that would indicate that the antibody is doing exactly what it is suppose to do and that is attack the intruder. What needs to be determined is if the body is making these antibodies because it knows there is something wrong with the fetus, or if it is making them because it sees the fetus as an intruder like with a transplant rejection.

This to me seems like the body following a normal protocol. What I am taking out of this that the article doesn't really talk about is this. They seem to think they have found a discrepancy, which they appear to believe that they can find a way to reverse. I think that perhaps the brain was given information that the fetus was faulty and was producing the appropriate antibodies to try to attack it

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
Autism rates have increased dramatically since the introduction of vaccinations. The rate now is approximately 1 in 200 whereas in the early 70's it was approximately 1 in 2000. If a person were to examine groups such as Quakers and Amish whom do not vaccinate their children, they will find that the disease is virtually non-existent in these communities.

The court system has on three separate occasions ruled in favor of the vaccinations and state they can establish no link between Autism and vaccinations, yet the evidence just in the Amish community screams out "hey look at me."

The Quakers and Amish do a lot differently than just not vaccinating their children. Perhaps we should be looking at the other things they do differently, to see if the cause lies there.

The Quakers and Amish do a lot differently than just not vaccinating their children. Perhaps we should be looking at the other things they do differently, to see if the cause lies there.

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
the evidence just in the Amish community screams out "hey look at me."

I agree

i highly doubt it that autism is caused exclusively by vaccines or by one single factor. i think it's related to genetics first, food/substance intake of both baby and mother and environmental factors. there may also be a link with the ultrasound but that's just another reason why (like x-rays) any medical procedure should be done whenever the risks are lower than the benefits. the ultrasound is a very common procedure and it would impact many more children if it were a major cause of autism. who knows it may be that the birth control pill is also a cause. have not seen any studies of women using birth control shortly before becoming pregnant and the relationship to autism.

all in all i think it's irresponsible to call for ending vaccination. there are more and more cases of children who die from preventable diseases because their parents refused vaccinations. what's worse is that even kids who were vaccinated are at risk (even though much lower obviously). if this trend continues it may be too risky to send kids to school in the near future.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by DarkSecret]

Autism is caused by an advanced species taking over this planet. If everyone had Autism there wouldnt be no need for heaven.....

Honestly, with all due respect, I will never vaccinate my child, no matter what the study. I watched my nephew go from being a child free of disability, to a completely different person after receiving the MMR. Also, his mother waited to get his MMR until he was four years old, thinking it would be a safe time frame. My nephew has been deemed vaccine injured by 3 different neurologists and that alone is enough for me to never agree to get one.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
That is a great find!

Treatment should be easy enough, but I'm really curious as to the cause. What would cause the immune system of a pregnant woman to identify fetal brain tissue as an attacking pathogen?

A number of things could cause it. We assume that the mother's body treats the fetus as a welcome addition, but there are some of us (that would be me) who get morning sickness within a week or two of getting pregnant (which is how I knew) and stayed that way for most of the pregnancy.

So... some of us have bodies that are not well adapted to pregnancy.

On top of that, repeated exposure to something can create allergies. I have very few allergies (for example) but after a lifetime of laundry I've developed an allergy to laundry soaps.

Why would more women nowadays respond in this way?

I suspect it's because more babies survive nowadays. In the past, autistic children were often institutionalized and certainly almost never found spouses. Someone with Aspergers would have a very difficult time finding a partner.

But with modern treatment and educational mainstreaming and better medicine, a lot of these marginal cases which may have the genetic tendency survive to go on and live wonderful lives... and have children.

I mean, it's got to be something environmental, right? Some change in diet or the presence of a toxin that wasn't ubiquitous in years past?

Food for thought...

I wouldn't rule out environmental causes, myself, but neither would I finger them as a primary cause. This happens in vitro and during the time when the brain "wiring" is set up.

Originally posted by som1else
Autism is caused by an advanced species taking over this planet. If everyone had Autism there wouldnt be no need for heaven.....

I take it you don't have any family members with autism.

I have a family member who's severely autistic, and a friend with a son who is extremely autistic and two learning disabled children.

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
It's an interesting possibility. I have a question though.

I have a set of twins, one is autistic, and the other isn't.

Makes me wonder if the study ever included twins? How is it that this could happen to one fetus and not the other while in the womb?

All that's been studied are mice, and they need to replicate the study before anyone makes any hard conclusions. However, if they're fraternal twins, there were two placentas (sorry... I know I'm getting all jargon-y here) and each had a different blood supply. One could have gotten "more" than the other.

If you and your spouse both have a "susceptible to autism" gene in your bodies, then it may be a "bad roll of the dice" where one child got both barrels and the other didn't.

I'm kind of glossing over stuff because I don't know the genetics involved but I think from my reading that it's not a simple case of "one gene in one place" but multiple genes and it has to be sort of a "bad juju lottery" for one child to end up with the right genetic material that triggers autism.

This is a guess, based on what I know of genetics and what I've read.

Originally posted by starseedz
Autism is rife in our family. Not to the extent of rainman but the lack of social skills is very strong. Interestingly enough it is more obvious in the boys than in the girls although having said that I can now recognise my mum as autistic. So called 'Madness' has gone back a few generations on her side of the family. I have 3 male cousins that are midly autistic. My nephew and son are also autistic. This to me says it is genetic and maybe the blood link could be part of that.

Autism spectrum disorders (like Aspergers) are more common in men than in women. That indicates it may be sex-linked, too.

Your family REALLY got a bad roll of the dice!

Originally posted by purehughness

Originally posted by Blaine91555

People who hit children don't have their Kid's respect. They have just terrified them to that point they avoid them until they are old enough to get the hell out of the house and away from the abuse.

Sorry, a pet gripe of mine. Can't stand seeing children abused by their own Parents.

Well said. Also, those who are abused in childhood, may develop psychological problems and abuse others themselves.
But could you imagine a parent abusing a child with autism because they can't understand why their child acts the way he/she does?

Yeah, I really pissed my stepdad off. I was a terror at times, really, but he didn't have to beat me.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by starseedz
Autism is rife in our family. Not to the extent of rainman but the lack of social skills is very strong. Interestingly enough it is more obvious in the boys than in the girls although having said that I can now recognise my mum as autistic. So called 'Madness' has gone back a few generations on her side of the family. I have 3 male cousins that are midly autistic. My nephew and son are also autistic. This to me says it is genetic and maybe the blood link could be part of that.

Autism spectrum disorders (like Aspergers) are more common in men than in women. That indicates it may be sex-linked, too.

Your family REALLY got a bad roll of the dice!

Hmmm. Sure they're not just recognized in men more?

I think there are more autistic women than we think.

I think autism comes from vaccines, this is an attempt to over-cast the real issue due to the fact that people are starting to understand the 'vaccine' threat...

Vaccines and medications most of the time just fix the symptoms and not the problem..