Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Questions about this:

How are they defining "autism" in this study?

Are they only looking at first-born vs. second-born children, or are they looking at other births (e.g. between the second and third child, or between the third and fourth child) that are less than 24 months apart?

Are the results of child abuse and neglect (depleted parental resources, stress, etc.) being labeled "autism" in the child?

1 posted on 01/09/2011 11:10:54 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: thecodont

Bunch of cr*p studies.....my mother had 6 kids all within a year and a half apart and autism was unheard of. Actually, I had 5 kids close together and Autism was rare—hadn’t even heard of it with my first ones.....then the spike....oh yes, with the mandatory vaccines which I avoided for my “healthy” babies. NO Hep B shots for them—no thankyou.

Funny how all these ways to get “Autism” never ever existed when a ton more babies were being born than now...and very large families were normal.

No common sense for the Marxists in charge though....no logic and reasoning and correlation allowed.....It might point to the obvious toxins.


2 posted on 01/09/2011 11:34:21 PM PST by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thecodont

I seriously doubt the accuracy of this study.

We are from a tradition of large families-—I mean anywhere from seven to eleven children. Yes, from one mother.

We are close to many families with “stair-step” children. Our first three of seven were born inside of four years.

We have never seen an autistic child in dozens of such families.

There must be factors that are not included here.

I believe some of these studies are skewed for socio-political purposes, including frightening Americans out of having large families.


3 posted on 01/09/2011 11:44:01 PM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thecodont
You could've read the article. /s

Q: How are they defining "autism" in this study?

Answer:The information on autism diagnoses came from the state's Department of Developmental Services. and Children with Asperger's syndrome and pervasive developmental disorders, milder forms of autism, weren't included

Q: Are they only looking at first-born vs. second-born children

Answer: YES! They analyzed data on second-born children born to the same parents whose older siblings didn't have autism.

I have an autistic nephew. He was first born.

4 posted on 01/09/2011 11:46:45 PM PST by newzjunkey (Well wishes to all the families affected by the Tucson shooting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thecodont

The whole autism thing sounds phony to me. 50 yrs ago, mental retardation (then a euphemism for imbecility) was common. Now no one is mentally retarded because it has progressed from a euphemism to a pejorative. Autism seems to be the new euphemism. In 20 yrs autism will become a pejorative and we will need a new euphemism.


5 posted on 01/09/2011 11:55:33 PM PST by 1955Ford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thecodont

My sons are 11 months apart. The oldest is a Ph. D. researcher at a prominent state university the second son is a GS 14 working on mapping. Both are happily married for over 10 years.

What I do not understand is how people can fret about vaccines, but not give a thought to hair products and dyes, bug spray, sun screen and all the other strange ingredients in cosmetics and skin creams that mothers slather all over their bodies - - all the while avoiding coffee.

Has anyone had concerns about animal vaccines or seen autistic animals?????


9 posted on 01/10/2011 4:48:48 AM PST by finnsheep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson