I am one of the few parents that could recover the kid from Autism. We have been crying wolf that it's a gut related issue, but mainstream is now slowly catching up.
sh ./dnstest.sh |sort -k 22 -n
test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 test8 test9 test10 Average
yandex 56 ms 56 ms 56 ms 57 ms 5 ms 57 ms 58 ms 5 ms 58 ms 58 ms 46.60
comodo 58 ms 6 ms 56 ms 57 ms 53 ms 56 ms 56 ms 56 ms 56 ms 56 ms 51.00
google2nd 55 ms 54 ms 56 ms 57 ms 55 ms 57 ms 55 ms 60 ms 55 ms 59 ms 56.30
opendns 54 ms 55 ms 56 ms 56 ms 56 ms 57 ms 59 ms 57 ms 57 ms 56 ms 56.30
google 58 ms 58 ms 56 ms 56 ms 55 ms 56 ms 55 ms 56 ms 57 ms 57 ms 56.40
norton 55 ms 56 ms 59 ms 56 ms 57 ms 56 ms 56 ms 57 ms 55 ms 57 ms 56.40
cleanbrowsing 59 ms 56 ms 57 ms 57 ms 56 ms 61 ms 57 ms 59 ms 55 ms 54 ms 57.10
quad9 62 ms 55 ms 56 ms 60 ms 56 ms 57 ms 55 ms 57 ms 56 ms 57 ms 57.10
cloudflare2nd 59 ms 57 ms 60 ms 56 ms 57 ms 58 ms 58 ms 59 ms 54 ms 56 ms 57.40
adguard 57 ms 59 ms 60 ms 58 ms 57 ms 59 ms 60 ms 61 ms 60 ms 61 ms 59.20
neustar 62 ms 59 ms 56 ms 58 ms 61 ms 61 ms 64 ms 61 ms 59 ms 57 ms 59.80
cloudflare 257 ms 241 ms 55 ms 139 ms 168 ms 163 ms 123 ms 157 ms 58 ms 58 ms 141.90
Why research has to validate everything? These are facts that children are regressing into Autism after MMR at 15 months.
Science still doesn't know how food gets digested and becomes poop. Will you stop eating, because science doesn't know what really happens during digestion?
> Science still doesn't know how food gets digested and becomes poop.
You're going to really need to provide some kind of evidence for this, because I'm pretty certain that scientists do have a pretty good idea how this process works.
For that matter, I could give you a layman's explanation that, while it may not be 100% accurate, probably would come really close to a real explanation...
For me this research actually validates the link. Because MMR vaccination is given at 15 months. Parents strongly suspect link between MMR and Autism, not all vaccinations as popularly believed.
> We know it because children who didn't get the vaccine
> show Autism symptoms around the same time.
That, my friend, is you making shit up. I know that you made it up, because such a study, comparing autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated children has never been done, despite a huge number of people asking for it.
As others have also expressed, foremost I'm also sorry about your son's diagnosis. As a parent of very young children, I live in fear of getting the news you received, as does my wife whom I might describe as a "Vaccine Skeptic".
Everyone says that so-called "anti-vaxxers" can't be pursuaded by reason. You're on HN so you must have some attraction to reason, and here two people responded with exactly the study you asked for.
I'm curious whether "everyone" is correct that you are not at all pursuaded by this evidence, as well as the evidence presented elsewhere against Wakefield?
My wife had a doctor once assure her when my eldest was getting her MMR something to the effect of "our shots are safe because we don't use the preservative that can cause autism," and now she's scared stiff of vaccines and requires my assurances that all data points to that doctor saying a lot of nonsense, probably with good intentions. My wife doesn't know how to read scientific studies or to distinguish between a sample size of 12 or 90,000, so it falls on me to provide the not-so-reassuring fact that our children will or will not be diagnosed with autism based on factors that are, at this point, not within our control, and that avoiding vaccines is only comtributing a net-negative to our children's health (and the health of our community). But again, my wife also doesn't frequent sites like HN as you do.
I like to think that we shouldn't give up on the idea of trying to find the proven truth about worries like vaccine-autism links, and spread that beyond our usual insular sphere of people who already agree with us. I appreciate that you're willing to share your (obviously unpopular-here, given the downblvoted) beliefs on HN. But I also hope that everyone's efforts to provide factual, scientifically valid data points about the very real lack of any vaccine-autism connection is not for naught. Is my hope at all justified, or is "everyone" else right?
Unless you regress into severe Autism, it's very difficult for parents or even doctors to recognize Autism until they are atleast 2 years.
Also according to the schedule, there is no big dose around 2 years. After 18 months, there are not many doses on schedule until children are again 4 years.
Most parents complain about MMR vaccination that is scheduled at 15 months. My son regressed into Autism after MMR. It is true. I hope the world realizes it before more children get effected.
First things first: sorry about your son's autism.
> My son regressed into Autism after MMR. It is true. I hope the world realizes it before more children get effected.
"The world" does not dispute that your son started showing signs of autism right after getting the MMR vaccine. Since there is no scientific causal explanation, and since study after study after study have shown that children who get the MMR vaccine do not develop autism at higher rates than those who did not get the vaccine, the best explanation is that the timing of the onset of your son's condition is a coincidence. I understand why parents dealing with their own personal sample size of one jump to that conclusion, but the link is just not there.
Respectfully, saying "just watch this 90 minute film" is not a very worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
I gather from summaries I've just now seen that this film claims there is a global conspiracy to suppress the truth. If you're interested in reality, you can start reading about all the many reasons Wakefield has been discredited here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
The most damning condemnation of Wakefield's "research" isn't even his own retraction of it. It's the number of his "subjects" (N=12, remember) that have come out and said he outright fabricated his data, as regards their child.
When a double-digit percentage fraction of the subjects in your "seminal" work cry foul about that work, you either have to give up that story, or admit that you're just making shit up.
Let's be clear here: Andrew Wakefield falsified his data and was stripped of his medical license for it.
He was invested in a company developing a new vaccine preservative and the study was purely a scare tactic to get vaccine makers to switch from a cheap patent-free preservative (thimerosal) to an expensive patented one.
Vaccines in the western world have completely dumped thimerosal out of an extreme abundance of caution. Many of the vaccines don't even use a preservative or use a trace amount since we have good refrigeration and fast transportation networks. Despite all that the rate of autism diagnosis has continued to increase completely unchanged. In fact rates of autism diagnosis hasn't been affected by anti-vax parents refusing vaccines either. If you properly control for induced bias there is no difference in autism rates among anti-vax parents and rational parents.
When you hypothesize a causal relationship, remove the causal factor, and the outcomes are unaffected we call that hypothesis <i>disproven</i>. There is no link between vaccines and autism. Period. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Contraception is not improvement in health. Around 1800's women used to have atleast 10 children. Women now cannot even imagine having 10 children. Most of them will die before giving birth to 10th one.
Contraception is a huge improvement in quality of life as well as human freedom.
Women in the past would very frequently die in childbirth. Do you have data to show that childbirth is as dangerous as it was in the path? Or that it was safer in the past? (That would be truly shocking and counterintuitive.)
To answer some of my own questions, child birth is becoming tremendously safer:
Year Deaths per 1000 live births
------------ ----------------------------
1700 to 1750 10.5 (British [1])
1750 to 1800 7.5 (British [1])
1800 to 1850 5.0 (British [1])
1990 3.8 (Global [2])
2013 2.0 (Global [2])
2013 <0.09 (UK [3])
2013 <0.28 (US [4])
Though I can't find a source, some articles claim a 1% maternal mortality rate in the 1600s! [5]
From that same Slate article, child birth is still one of the most dangerous things for young women, despite it being far safer than ever in the past. This means that contraception is actually a health benefit. It makes it much safer to be a young woman.
It's actually the opposite: Humans are not very good at giving birth. And that is surprising.
Child birth is hugely dangerous for humans, and the speculation in the scientific field is that it's an evolutionary interplay between the size of an infant's skull at birth, constraints on hip sizes, and the amount of brain development that can happen as a fetus or as an infant.
Tens of thousands of years is pretty short in terms of morphological development of humans. Evolution on time scales shorter than that is limited to extremely simple mutations, usually, such as lactose tolerance by adults (which has arisen multiple times independently in the past 10k years).
I do agree that contraception has little impact on maternal mortality during child birth.
My comment was satirical. I think women should have choice. I believe that improvement in child mortality was because of contraception and not advances made in health.
Showing a graph with improvements in child mortality rate and alluding us to believe in the following is wrong.
1. It happened because of living conditions. 2. Healthier diet — made possible through higher productivity in the agricultural sector and overseas trade. 3. age-old war against infectious disease 4. discovery of the germ theory of disease 5. development of antibiotics and vaccines
While I believe that contraception has improved child mortality rate. We should compare child mortality rate of first 2 children over the past 200 years. Child mortality will obviously be high when women have no choice.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Even without introducing the twist that your previous comment was "satirical," and therefore that some or all of this comment may be satirical, it's unclear what point you're trying to communicate.
If you are saying "child mortality is going down only because women are having fewer children and not because of improvements in healthcare," then that statement is obviously wrong and would appear to be satire in itself. If its satire, I'm not sure what the point is. If it's not satire, then I'm not sure how you're going to convince people without at least a fig leaf of a citation.
You understood what I am saying and have also summarized it.
"child mortality is going down only because women are having fewer children and not because of improvements in healthcare"
There might be improvements in healthcare, antibiotics and vaccinations. But I believe that contraception is a major factor in improving child mortality rate. Obviously I cannot cite anything, as it's my belief.
So I started looking for examples to see if I am correct. Looks like my belief is wrong.
Despite a higher prevalence of several risk factors for perinatal and infant death among the Amish, neonatal and infant death rates for Geauga Settlement Amish have been very similar to the corresponding rates for white children in rural Ohio and the state as a whole.
--Perinatal, Infant, and Child Death Rates among the Old Order Amish
My comment was satirical. I think women should have choice. I believe that improvement in child mortality was because of contraception and not advances made in health.
Showing a graph with improvements in child mortality rate and alluding us to believe that:
1. It happened because of living conditions.
2. Healthier diet — made possible through higher productivity in the agricultural sector and overseas trade.
3. age-old war against infectious disease
4. discovery of the germ theory of disease
5. development of antibiotics and vaccines
While I believe that contraception has improved child mortality rate. We should compare child mortality rate of first 2 children over the past 200 years. Child mortality will obviously be high when women have no choice.
I believe that we are being mislead about improvements in health, while in reality people have become weaker, less healthier. There are more diseases now than before. We couldn't really find cure for diseases. Discovery of Antibiotics was helpful for a while. Now bacteria is winning that battle with some superbugs among us.
Any rate of reproduction over replacement level is probably irresponsible, at this point, from a global perspective. We could probably stand to reduce the population down by a couple billion.
It's also easier to have ten children when you start having them at 15 or sixteen, like my grandmother did, rather than at 30, as many are doing now.
My comment was satirical. I think women should have choice. I believe that improvement in child mortality was because of contraception and not advances made in health.
Showing a graph with improvements in child mortality rate and alluding us to believe in the following is wrong.
1. It happened because of living conditions.
2. Healthier diet — made possible through higher productivity in the agricultural sector and overseas trade.
3. age-old war against infectious disease
4. discovery of the germ theory of disease
5. development of antibiotics and vaccines
While I believe that contraception has improved child mortality rate. We should compare child mortality rate of first 2 children over the past 200 years. Child mortality will obviously be high when women have no choice.
All children with Autism have gut issues. They have dysbiosis which causes them to behave like they do. Many children recover when their gut micro-biome is fixed. Organic Castor Oil taken regularly twice a week for an year will fix it. I know that people will not believe it. But I would just like to post it here just for future reference.
Unfortunately these kind of beliefs can be harmful not only to autistic children but their parents also. This is not about 'belief', it's simply that you have no evidence to support your claims.
Example that some of parents are trying to tell the world that Autism is a gut related issue.