HHS report will link autism to acetaminophen and folate deficiency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Of all the places you could possibly troll on the Internet, why did choose to troll parents of kids with special needs? Seriously. Do you have any shame?

Can you please explain in detail why you think it is trolling SN parents to say that vaccines don’t cause autism and point out that the Tylenol connection has been pretty conclusively disproven? Notice I am not saying anything about folate - I actually don’t know enough about that but I also don’t trust RFK for a second to have any sort of integrity in discussing it.

I misread your post and thought you were the MAGA poster defending RFK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Of all the places you could possibly troll on the Internet, why did choose to troll parents of kids with special needs? Seriously. Do you have any shame?

Can you please explain in detail why you think it is trolling SN parents to say that vaccines don’t cause autism and point out that the Tylenol connection has been pretty conclusively disproven? Notice I am not saying anything about folate - I actually don’t know enough about that but I also don’t trust RFK for a second to have any sort of integrity in discussing it.

Because it’s blatantly false information.

WHAT is false exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Of all the places you could possibly troll on the Internet, why did choose to troll parents of kids with special needs? Seriously. Do you have any shame?

Can you please explain in detail why you think it is trolling SN parents to say that vaccines don’t cause autism and point out that the Tylenol connection has been pretty conclusively disproven? Notice I am not saying anything about folate - I actually don’t know enough about that but I also don’t trust RFK for a second to have any sort of integrity in discussing it.

I misread your post and thought you were the MAGA poster defending RFK.

Thanks 🙏 😊

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So everyone knows to just ignore whatever the eff comes out of this ridiculous takeover of our entire health system.

Hopefully we can return to a respected country once again in the field of science and medicine. But, the damage is great.

You can do that.

I will ignore almost everything the CDC has said the past 20 years because clearly they got it wrong and listen with an open mind to new information and look at data with a discerning yet open perspective.

Ok, mommy blogger, keep doing your own “research”.

[Anonymous]

Let's assume this folate intervention thats been discussed in another thread helps 20% of autistic children to become verbal or reduce behaviors significantly. If that proves to be the case (and it is yet to be seen) but if that is the case it will be very hard to reconcile the fact that this intervention has been known for more than 10 (20?) years and the cdc has not furthered the intervention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume this folate intervention thats been discussed in another thread helps 20% of autistic children to become verbal or reduce behaviors significantly. If that proves to be the case (and it is yet to be seen) but if that is the case it will be very hard to reconcile the fact that this intervention has been known for more than 10 (20?) years and the cdc has not furthered the intervention.

I don't know, the research seems very mixed and uncertain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume this folate intervention thats been discussed in another thread helps 20% of autistic children to become verbal or reduce behaviors significantly. If that proves to be the case (and it is yet to be seen) but if that is the case it will be very hard to reconcile the fact that this intervention has been known for more than 10 (20?) years and the cdc has not furthered the intervention.

What makes you think the CDC wouldn’t have done this research without RFK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

Such DUMB statements. Please explain what early interventions are helpful for autism. Parents with autistic children really want to know about these imaginary interventions. Are you saying autism can be cured with these magical interventions? Please elaborate.

What the hell does your comment about RFK's job being "informing the masses" and "cleaning up research" mean? The man is neither sane nor intelligent enough to do either. He clearly will increase data suppression.

Initial poster here is correct. The second poster, not so much.
Most people understand that this is a multifactoral factor that includes genetics and environmental triggers. Also, the growing research for early intervention is very positive, but no it does not cure autism.

If you don’t think that research has been impacted by politics and especially Fortune 500 companies for decades, you are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

Such DUMB statements. Please explain what early interventions are helpful for autism. Parents with autistic children really want to know about these imaginary interventions. Are you saying autism can be cured with these magical interventions? Please elaborate.

What the hell does your comment about RFK's job being "informing the masses" and "cleaning up research" mean? The man is neither sane nor intelligent enough to do either. He clearly will increase data suppression.

Initial poster here is correct. The second poster, not so much.
Most people understand that this is a multifactoral factor that includes genetics and environmental triggers. Also, the growing research for early intervention is very positive, but no it does not cure autism.

If you don’t think that research has been impacted by politics and especially Fortune 500 companies for decades, you are the problem.

Ok … How do you think what RFK is doing is helping?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

Such DUMB statements. Please explain what early interventions are helpful for autism. Parents with autistic children really want to know about these imaginary interventions. Are you saying autism can be cured with these magical interventions? Please elaborate.

What the hell does your comment about RFK's job being "informing the masses" and "cleaning up research" mean? The man is neither sane nor intelligent enough to do either. He clearly will increase data suppression.

Initial poster here is correct. The second poster, not so much.
Most people understand that this is a multifactoral factor that includes genetics and environmental triggers. Also, the growing research for early intervention is very positive, but no it does not cure autism.

If you don’t think that research has been impacted by politics and especially Fortune 500 companies for decades, you are the problem.

+1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume this folate intervention thats been discussed in another thread helps 20% of autistic children to become verbal or reduce behaviors significantly. If that proves to be the case (and it is yet to be seen) but if that is the case it will be very hard to reconcile the fact that this intervention has been known for more than 10 (20?) years and the cdc has not furthered the intervention.

What makes you think the CDC wouldn’t have done this research without RFK?

+1
Which means it is garbage.

Anything coming out of the Trump Administration is a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

Such DUMB statements. Please explain what early interventions are helpful for autism. Parents with autistic children really want to know about these imaginary interventions. Are you saying autism can be cured with these magical interventions? Please elaborate.

What the hell does your comment about RFK's job being "informing the masses" and "cleaning up research" mean? The man is neither sane nor intelligent enough to do either. He clearly will increase data suppression.

Initial poster here is correct. The second poster, not so much.
Most people understand that this is a multifactoral factor that includes genetics and environmental triggers. Also, the growing research for early intervention is very positive, but no it does not cure autism.

If you don’t think that research has been impacted by politics and especially Fortune 500 companies for decades, you are the problem.

Ok … How do you think what RFK is doing is helping?

RFK Jr Mr Brain worm would not know one thing about science. He is a heiron addict for god's sake.

[Anonymous]

I really want to know what people think are the “Fortune 500” “big money” “Pharma” interests that have somehow captured autism research. As much as I hate PE taking over ABA centers, at least that’s one way families are getting direct services. If PE wanted to find major studies on early interventions I’m not sure I would be mad about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really want to know what people think are the “Fortune 500” “big money” “Pharma” interests that have somehow captured autism research. As much as I hate PE taking over ABA centers, at least that’s one way families are getting direct services. If PE wanted to find major studies on early interventions I’m not sure I would be mad about that.

They aren't which is why you haven't heard about folinic acid.
Do you know who would really benefit? The wine industry. A half glass of wine crossing the placents is likely better for a developing fetus than an adult dose of Tylenol. But there are no studies to prove that except that when your grandma was having her wine, there wasnt an explosion of severe autism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to know what people think are the “Fortune 500” “big money” “Pharma” interests that have somehow captured autism research. As much as I hate PE taking over ABA centers, at least that’s one way families are getting direct services. If PE wanted to find major studies on early interventions I’m not sure I would be mad about that.

They aren't which is why you haven't heard about folinic acid.
Do you know who would really benefit? The wine industry. A half glass of wine crossing the placents is likely better for a developing fetus than an adult dose of Tylenol. But there are no studies to prove that except that when your grandma was having her wine, there wasnt an explosion of severe autism.

Is there an “explosion of severe autism”?