Vaccine-autism how long will this crap be taken seriously

fancydirt · Post by **fancydirt** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:37 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:It's the varicella vaccine. Recently it's been combined with the MMR vaccine to make the MMRV vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella, vericella). I guess the thinking is that since you're getting the MMR anyway, throw in the V. Four for the quick stinging pain of one.

Cool. It also has fewer unrelated results in a google search so it has that going for it.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:47 pm

Measles, mumps, and chicken pox used to be a childhood rite of passage. Everybody has pockmarks to show for it. This vaccine is yet another step in the pussification of America.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:55 pm

There's also one out there for pneumonia now as well. My daughter just got her 4 year old shots and they threw that on in there. In think it was for my 4 year old - might have been the 1 year old. Their birthdays are 2 weeks apart, so the Dr. visits kind of run together. But one of them got one for pneumonia. (I'm such a good parent.)

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:16 pm

stessier wrote:There's also one out there for pneumonia now as well. My daughter just got her 4 year old shots and they threw that on in there. In think it was for my 4 year old - might have been the 1 year old. Their birthdays are 2 weeks apart, so the Dr. visits kind of run together. But one of them got one for pneumonia. (I'm such a good parent.)

Pneumococcal vaccine. Could be either but I think it's probably the 1-year-old.

CDC wrote: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is recommended for all children less than 59 months old. In addition, children aged more than 24 months who are at high risk of pneumococcal disease and adults with risk factors may receive the pneumococcal polysaccaride vaccine.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:21 pm

Isn't the lumping together of more and more vaccines at once part of the objection of some of the less strident vaccine-skeptical folk? At least some of them would be more amenable if they had the choice to spread them out more (or so I have read).

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:16 pm

I got Chicken Pox at age 20. It knocked me completely out of commission for 10 days. For the majority of those, I was completely incapable of caring for myself. The only food I ate was what was put in front of me. If I'd been living on my own at that point, I likely would have needed someone to come stay with me or be hospitalized.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:11 pm

silverjon wrote:Isn't the lumping together of more and more vaccines at once part of the objection of some of the less strident vaccine-skeptical folk? At least some of them would be more amenable if they had the choice to spread them out more (or so I have read).

The longer the delay the more likely shots will be missed and more cost to administer them

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:13 pm

CBS News

The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.

In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.
...
Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries.
...
Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child."

And lo, the floodgates were opened...

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:29 pm

I have no kids so I wouldn't know, but is it normal for a child to receive that many vaccinations in one trip? The vet doesn't even like giving my dog all his boosters on the same trip.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:34 pm

9 in one trip sounds excessive to me too. My daughter didn't get that many and she is on an accelerated schedule to get caught up asap. I can see them settling this case on the grounds of the Dr. screwing up by giving the kid that many, but not it causing autism.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:59 pm

It seemed pretty clear to me that the "vaccines cause autism" myth had been fully debunked right about the time that 75% of the authors of the original (poorly-executed) 1998 study proposing a causal link retracted it. Oh yeah, and the lead physician lost his medical license. I'd say that the message to take away from this is that you can sue anybody for anything in the US and you might even win. It doesn't mean your position was factual, it just means you won.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:33 pm

Ironically.....

Now I can't believe anything Jenny McCarthy says.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:34 pm

Wait. "Federal vaccine court"?

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:34 pm

tgb wrote:Now I can't believe anything Jenny McCarthy says.

Now??!?

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:43 pm

Odin wrote:
tgb wrote:Now I can't believe anything Jenny McCarthy says.
Now??!?

I'll never believe a Playmate data sheet again!

Kraken wrote:Wait. "Federal vaccine court"?

A special court set up to handle claims of vaccine-related injuries. It was created following a previous vaccine scare, with the goal of avoiding gigantic jury awards that would lead pharma companies to get out of the vaccine business.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:43 pm

Kraken wrote:Wait. "Federal vaccine court"?

Yup

Vaccine court is the popular term which refers to the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the Court of Claims, sitting without a jury. The program was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:22 pm

Arcanis wrote:9 in one trip sounds excessive to me too.

Dr. Offit says we are biologically capable of responding up to 100,000 vaccines at once. So 9 isn't so many.

This Wired article might have been linked to already, but just in case - An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.

The 100k number first appears on page 4 and is explained more later on.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:02 pm

stessier wrote:
Arcanis wrote:9 in one trip sounds excessive to me too.
Dr. Offit says we are biologically capable of responding up to 100,000 vaccines at once. So 9 isn't so many.

This Wired article might have been linked to already, but just in case - An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.

The 100k number first appears on page 4 and is explained more later on.

While I think it is possible to take that many without bad interactions I think the limit it in the case of someone having a bad reaction to multiple shots at once. It happens occasionally that someone's body freaks out with an immunization so if you limit how many are given at once then you limit the chances of the body going nuts. But i'm not a Dr. nor do i play one on TV and I slept at home not a Holiday Inn, so what do I really know.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:36 am

Another report of a study that finds no link between thermisol and autism.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:50 am

Biyobi wrote:I have no kids so I wouldn't know, but is it normal for a child to receive that many vaccinations in one trip? The vet doesn't even like giving my dog all his boosters on the same trip.

Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Measles, mumps, rubella, varicella is one shot (MMRV)
diptheria, tetanus, pertussis is one shot (DaTP)
Polio and Hib are one shot each, I think.

It still seems like a lot but it's only 4 shots. Regardless, it if she didn't have a mitochondrial disorder, it wouldn't have been a problem. It's like saying penicillin causes death because someone with a penicillin allergy died from a dose.

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism "test cases" have been defeated at trial.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:52 pm

Arcanis wrote:9 in one trip sounds excessive to me too. My daughter didn't get that many and she is on an accelerated schedule to get caught up asap. I can see them settling this case on the grounds of the Dr. screwing up by giving the kid that many, but not it causing autism.

Except insurance is trying to cut down payments, and since all these shots are required or recommended, they are administered in as as few visits as possible, less cost to insurers.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:54 pm

Kasey Chang wrote:
Arcanis wrote:9 in one trip sounds excessive to me too. My daughter didn't get that many and she is on an accelerated schedule to get caught up asap. I can see them settling this case on the grounds of the Dr. screwing up by giving the kid that many, but not it causing autism.
Except insurance is trying to cut down payments, and since all these shots are required or recommended, they are administered in as as few visits as possible, less cost to insurers.

The CDC supports multiple vaccines:

Giving a child several vaccinations during the same visit offers two practical advantages. First, we want to immunize children as quickly as possible to give them protection during the vulnerable early months of their lives. Second, giving several vaccinations at the same time means fewer official visit, which saves parents both time and money, and may be less traumatic for the child.

"Simultaneous vaccination" is when multiple vaccines are administered during the same doctor's visit, usually in separate limbs (e.g. one in each arm). A "combination vaccine" consists of two or more separate vaccines that have been combined into a single shot. Combination vaccines have been in use in the United States since the mid-1940's. Examples of combination vaccines in current use are: DTaP(diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis), trivalent IPV (three strains of inactivated polio vaccine), MMR (measles-mumps-rubella), DTaP-Hib, and Hib-Hep B (hepatitis B).

The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system. A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects. Consequently, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended simultaneous administration of all routine childhood vaccines when appropriate. Research is underway to find methods to combine more antigens in a single vaccine injection (for example, MMR and chickenpox). This will provide all the advantages of the individual vaccines, but will require fewer shots

.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:12 pm

A small victory locally today. The Australian Vaccination Network’s charitable status has been revoked. While all this really means is that donations will not be tax deductible, it does take a chunk out of their credibility.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:11 pm

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/0 ... index.html" target="_blank

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.
"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:21 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/0 ... index.html

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.
"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

But the crazies are deterred not at all.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:38 pm

Andrew Wakefield is their hero. They *have* to defend him or else risk losing their identity and purpose in life.

Basically it's science-denial. They have to find something to blame autism on, and they refuse to accept anything that "disprove" the alleged link.

Denialism is dangerous if taken too far. In Africa, it led to plenty of death when some local leader claimed folk medicine will cure AIDS instead of Western drugs.

Here's Michael Spector's TED Talk on the danger of denialism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMLSs8t1ng" target="_blank

Sectoid · Post by **Sectoid** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:13 am

I know many of you are parents and some may have truly autistic children. What I am about to say may offend those parents and if your child truly has autism (as diagnosed by a MEDICAL Doctor) I apologize.
The cases of autism in America have risen to levels never seen before, especially in children. One reason I see for this is that the parents (particularly the mothers) have some strange desire to have a child with a disability. Maybe it is that they want to feel pitied or that they want some special treatment. The whole "You don't understand what it is like to raise a child with this disorder" statement comes to mind. Children, especially those with a mentally abusive parent, will eat up whatever extra attention is thrown their way. Thus they will continue to act as though there is something wrong with them and it becomes a crutch in their life. On a personal note, I am from a divorced family and when I was in school I used that as an excuse for not doing certain things, like homework. I was actually just being lazy, but I got attention from it and got away with it.
Another reason is misdiagnosis. Autism can be misdiagnosed very easily since some of the major markers for the disorder can be other comorbid disorders. Repetitive actions can be explained by OCD and Tourette's. Repetative movements can be explained by Tourettes and ADHD. Speech disorders can be Generalized Anxiety Disorder or even PTSD. That's just the anxiety disorders which just so happen to manifest themselves in the same parts of the brain that Autistic brains have either over or under activity.
For some reason parents and some medical professionals seem to be pushing for an Autism diagnosis.
From what I know about the educational system (which is little), schools get extra funds for having children with special needs. Thus they too have a reason for having children in their school with Autism or other disorders.
Whatever the reason, it has to stop. My mother is an elementary school teacher and has been for quite some time. She went from having no children with Autism in her class to having almost 35% of her class having some kind of Autism or Asperger's diagnosis. This is very similar to the ADD phenomenon when that was first classified as an Axis I disorder. Magically, the number of cases shot up to astronomical levels.
As far as Vaccine's causing Autism I don't buy it. I know that when I was a kid we got shots left and right and I don't have Autism and neither does anyone I know from High School or College.

CGMark · Post by **CGMark** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:42 am

I would guess that what you have to say may apply to some small amount of Autism cases.

I have no idea why a mother would WANT a child with some sort of disability, and that would be a mental problem with the mother. I highly doubt that a doctor would diagnose a child with something like Autism simply because a mother might insist that the child has a problem. Again, I am sure that there are doctors out there who would.

Just as there are doctors out there who would diagnose someone with a malady that "requires" medical marijuana or some "pain" that "requires" darvocet or better.

The news that the main doctor behind the study "faked" the results is disheartening, to say the least.

Some of the rise in Autism I am sure if related to different "disorders" being classified as Autism, when before they were not. Just like the amount of things that are now classified as ADD.

I was blessed enough with a daughter who hasnt shown any signs of a malady of any sort. GF on the other hand had twins who developed SKIDS early on in life and spent almost two years in the hospital at U of M and she stayed in the Ronald McDonald house during that time. They had to have bone marrow transplants as a last effort to save their life. Which worked. For one of them. I doubt that at any point this was due to her wanting some sort of sympathy.

The fact that people were believing what the doctor had to say is no surprise. Everyone wants a solution to a problem. Not just a treatment. So you will listen even when its a minority of people voicing an opinion. My guess would be this is not the first time a doctor has misrepresented his findings to get a point across. Look at all the drugs that get pulled or changed due to doctors misusing, mis-prescribing or any number of other things. How about a teen acne drug that later on is found to cause depression and suicidal thoughts in the teens taking it?

Anyways.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:45 am

CGMark wrote: My guess would be this is not the first time a doctor has misrepresented his findings to get a point across. Look at all the drugs that get pulled or changed due to doctors misusing, mis-prescribing or any number of other things. How about a teen acne drug that later on is found to cause depression and suicidal thoughts in the teens taking it?

There's a big difference between a doctor prescribing a medication in good faith that is later determined to be harmful and Dr. Wakefield promoting his own antiscientific, unethical work to harm both autistic children and non-autistic children who go unvaccinated (and in some cases die) because of his deliberate lies and misinformation.

He paid kids 5 pounds his son's birthday party to take their blood for studies, often without parental consent. He performed unecessary colonoscopies and spinal taps on children. His "research" against the MMR vaccine was started and funded by lawyers suing pharmaceutical companies. This guy isn't just an overzealous researcher or medicinal marijuana rubber stamper. He's a dangerous fraud.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:04 am

Sectoid wrote: Whatever the reason, it has to stop. My mother is an elementary school teacher and has been for quite some time. She went from having no children with Autism in her class to having almost 35% of her class having some kind of Autism or Asperger's diagnosis. This is very similar to the ADD phenomenon when that was first classified as an Axis I disorder. Magically, the number of cases shot up to astronomical levels.
As far as Vaccine's causing Autism I don't buy it. I know that when I was a kid we got shots left and right and I don't have Autism and neither does anyone I know from High School or College.

Hmm....35% is about the percentage we wrote off as "dumb asses," kids seemingly with no motivation to learn, sometimes with an aggressive loathing towards school as well as toward students who performed well. These kids had mental and social issues.

Are you suggesting that we have to stop looking into why such a large percentage of kids have these problems? Just because they didn't have a name for it in the past doesn't mean it didn't exist. If a school can have extra programs available that help such kids, I'm all for it.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:47 am

Reading the comments below that link, I weep.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:58 am

Sectoid wrote:One reason I see for this is that the parents (particularly the mothers) have some strange desire to have a child with a disability. Maybe it is that they want to feel pitied or that they want some special treatment.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Without getting into whether or not autism is misdiagnosed or overdiagnosed, it would be such an infitesimally small number of parents who have a desire to have a child with a disability, and those parents would have to be majorly otherwise mentally disturbed, that it's not even worth discussing.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:09 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Sectoid wrote:One reason I see for this is that the parents (particularly the mothers) have some strange desire to have a child with a disability. Maybe it is that they want to feel pitied or that they want some special treatment.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Without getting into whether or not autism is misdiagnosed or overdiagnosed, it would be such an infitesimally small number of parents who have a desire to have a child with a disability, and those parents would have to be majorly otherwise mentally disturbed, that it's not even worth discussing.

+1.

*Maybe* some parents would prefer to be able to medicate their child over difficult (and exhausting) parenting struggles. I'd be reluctant to say that, but it's at least plausible. But to think that people would want to have a child with a disability is insanity.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:37 pm

I think it would also be accurate to say that parents who believe they have a child with a behavioral issue would prefer to have a name and diagnosis to put to that issue. That is a far cry from wishing for a disabled child.

And autism is a developmental disorder, the severity of which determines whether it is a disability or not, not the mere fact of diagnosis.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:50 pm

CGMark wrote:I have no idea why a mother would WANT a child with some sort of disability, and that would be a mental problem with the mother.

It's called Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy, and I think it manifests mostly as a plot device in works of popular fiction. That's how I've heard of it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:55 pm

Also available as a DSM-IV factitious disorder: not otherwise specified (300.19):

Münchausen by proxy ... is coded in the DSM-IV under Factitious Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified).

CGMark · Post by **CGMark** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:58 pm

silverjon wrote:
CGMark wrote:I have no idea why a mother would WANT a child with some sort of disability, and that would be a mental problem with the mother.
It's called Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy, and I think it manifests mostly as a plot device in works of popular fiction. That's how I've heard of it.

I knew what it was called, but thank you for spelling it out..

As I said thats a mental issue with the mother.

rhinohelix · Post by **rhinohelix** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:52 pm

CGMark wrote:
silverjon wrote:
CGMark wrote:I have no idea why a mother would WANT a child with some sort of disability, and that would be a mental problem with the mother.
It's called Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy, and I think it manifests mostly as a plot device in works of popular fiction. That's how I've heard of it.

I knew what it was called, but thank you for spelling it out.. As I said thats a mental issue with the mother.

I would posit that while actual DSM IV Münchhausen By Proxy is rare, the relief of being able to label issues with children and the halo effect of caring for a child with a disability probably pushes a fair number who wouldn't fit into the textbook definition to accept the label more willingly.

Think about this in terms of societal acceptance of disabilities and labels: Years ago, parents would fight any such labeling due to the stigma it carried, for both the child and the family. Today, rather than stigma it carries with it monetary aid and social recognition. Faced with that or having a child who can be problematic without the benefits that come with the disability label, I would imagine a large number would be relieved to put a name on it.

These aren't people who want a child with disabilities or force a child with issues into the label, these are parents who have children with behavioral issues for whom the label offers sanctuary a defined plan of action and a way forward.

Sectoid · Post by **Sectoid** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:04 pm

El Guapo wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:
Sectoid wrote:One reason I see for this is that the parents (particularly the mothers) have some strange desire to have a child with a disability. Maybe it is that they want to feel pitied or that they want some special treatment.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Without getting into whether or not autism is misdiagnosed or overdiagnosed, it would be such an infitesimally small number of parents who have a desire to have a child with a disability, and those parents would have to be majorly otherwise mentally disturbed, that it's not even worth discussing.
+1.

*Maybe* some parents would prefer to be able to medicate their child over difficult (and exhausting) parenting struggles. I'd be reluctant to say that, but it's at least plausible. But to think that people would want to have a child with a disability is insanity.

El Guapo,
It is insane. That is my point. I can't even count the number of "Autism Awareness" ribbon magnets on minivans in my town. They are all right there, next to the "Soccer Mom"/"Lacrosse Mom" bumper stickers. They are bragging. I don't go around town with a OCD magnet on my car (which would have to be perfectly level and in line with the lines of the car).
I am not against Autism awareness, far from it. However, since the number of Autism cases has increased so dramatically over recent years are the kids that are really suffering from it getting help?
This is turning into a bit of a Philosophical debate, but let me ask you something:
Do you feel better when you overcome adversity? Doesn't it feel good to get back up when you are knocked down?
Of course you do. It is human nature and it is also human nature to tell everyone how hard you had it and how you overcame it. It is why we root for the underdog. Part of our brain releases chemicals that make us feel better when something bad happens. Runners for example get a "runner's high" from endorphins. What the brain is actually telling you is that you should stop because you are doing serious damage here. There are some people who are addicted to these chemicals. It is why there are "cutters" and people who have unnecessary surgeries. Depression can also lead to the same problems. Which is why they are prescribed SSRIs. Serotonin gives you a feeling of well-being, which can snap you out of the depression cycle.
What could be worse than having a child with a serious problem? The catch here is that parents believe (whether intentional or not) that it is a controllable problem. With the added advantage of being able to control the child's behavior with medication and blame the disorder for what is wrong with their kids.
When ADD/ADHD first came about (yes I'm going back there), it was blamed for why a majority of kids could not do well in school. When it became an Axis I disorder (a decision I do not agree with), it became a legal reason to medicate your child and put them in "special" classes. How many kids actually have ADD/ADHD? I have no idea. Will you see improvement in a child's focus if you put them on Ritalin? In a majority of cases, yes. It affects the child chemically regardless of if they have the disorder or not.
So, in a the mind of a parent with an "overactive" child that they cannot deal with, why on earth would you not get the medication and the diagnosis?

I guess what I am trying to say, but am going off on tangents is that (at least around here) it has become the thing to have a child with Autism. I think it is horrible too and something that will mark the child for a long time.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:08 pm

rhinohelix wrote:I would posit that while actual DSM IV Münchhausen By Proxy is rare, the relief of being able to label issues with children and the halo effect of caring for a child with a disability probably pushes a fair number who wouldn't fit into the textbook definition to accept the label more willingly.

Think about this in terms of societal acceptance of disabilities and labels: Years ago, parents would fight any such labeling due to the stigma it carried, for both the child and the family. Today, rather than stigma it carries with it monetary aid and social recognition. Faced with that or having a child who can be problematic without the benefits that come with the disability label, I would imagine a large number would be relieved to put a name on it.

These aren't people who want a child with disabilities or force a child with issues into the label, these are parents who have children with behavioral issues for whom the label offers sanctuary a defined plan of action and a way forward.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the diagnosis of autism - the doctors are still using (presumably) the appropriate tests and standards to come to a diagnosis of autism. (And anecdotally, I know of a number of people who have had children diagnosed with autism. Every one of them fought the diagnosis to some extent.)

Most parents of kids with disabilities or special needs already place way too much of the blame on themselves, regardless of whether there is any validity to it. (That's why you see them jumping on issues like vaccinations in the face of science. Finally, they have something other than themselves to blame for what happened to their children!) It's a punch to the gut to these parents to try to throw more guilt their way by claiming that they somehow wanted the disability.