At this point the safest thing may be that there are too many types for it to be one or the same thing. Genetics might matter in shedding light not only on direct causation, but on collateral physical effects, reactions and ailments. Just how I see it, since some things that appear to be significant issues of some kids on the spectrum are not my kid’s, and vice versa.

Perhaps genetics, environmental factors, virus’ or even various combinations of the above can result in the variety of conditions we call Autism. Why does there have to be one cause?

thimerosal has been largely reduced in most vaccines in the US as of 2002. A few vaccines do still have it, such as the flu vaccine.

Frankly I’d like to see a study of the percentage of children with adverse reactions to the vaccine that do and don’t have autism. Adverse reactions are extremely rare, but do happen and it seems everyone who is convinced those naughty vaccines caused autism has a child that got violently ill supposedly immediately after getting the shot (my son didn’t, I don’t think vaccines caused his autism. But then he has bipolar disorder and adhd in his family which are both somewhat genetic, so maybe I’m more inclined to believe its genetics than most. I also have a child that hugs me to the point it’s annoying sometimes, so maybe that’s why I’m not shocked and worried as well.

Ed., Done!

“If someone does not understand what evidence-based means, that would be Harold. Would the FDA, for example, approve a drug based on a non-randomized trial with no blinding? How about 100 such trials?”

The FDA approves drugs that have not been adequately tested for safety and efficacy, so you should be careful with that argument.

They also approve drugs for use against populations that were never tested during trials,. They also approve vaccines all the time without testing for safety against placebo.

I think a lot more blame should go to both the medical and scientific community on this one. If the scientific/medical community didn’t have so many bad studies of their own, or they would address the major acknowledged conflicts of interest, they might be able to stem the tide of the pseudo scientists.

As it is, they still continue to publish and then support poor studies. Only years later do they sometimes admit the problems, but only after plugging the next study. That does not inspire any confidence in the community or in the process.

While this appears to be annoying and unacceptable to important and influential “autism advocates” such as yourself, criticism is an essential aspect of science, as is accurate reference to primary sources.

Everything in the post I made above (including the foundation for the question for Dr Wilder) can be verified by reading the peer-reviewed literature. But it seems that you judge at least some of the major papers in the ABA literature in autism to be a “diatribe” that should be censored.

That is, you are forcefully opposed to, and determine to destroy the reputation of, anyone who has the gall to even mention what is reported in the peer-reviewed literature–unless it is something you agree with.

This is all very helpful in illuminating the standards and complex needs of Canada’s important and powerful “autism advocates.”