Who's on First?

[Guest guest]

Who's on First?

by Obradovic

I imagine the coming spin to go something like this:

Reporter: "So, the federal government, a court designed for the vaccine injured to be specific, just conceeded a young girl indeed regressed into Autism because of her vaccines and are awarding her compensation. How do you respond, doctor?"

Doctor: "Well, let's be clear, they didn't say she regressed into Autism because of her vaccines. They said she had an underlying disorder that was aggravated by her vaccines to the point of making it LOOK like she has Autism."

R: "Well, isn't Autism based on what it looks like only? There is no biological test, correct?"

D: "Um, yes, it is diagnosed based on behavior only."

R: "So, you're saying she has behaviors that look like Autism, but they actually aren't Autism? How do you make the distinction between a behavior that is Autism and behavior that just looks like Autism, but really isn't? Can you clarify that?"

D: "Yes, a behavior that is true Autism is in the diagnostic manual. Her behaviors just look like those."

R: "Can you be more specific? This girl was indeed diagnosed with Autism by the medical community. They could not distinguish between her actually having Autism and just looking like she had Autism. Are you saying they were mistaken?"

D:"Yes, they were. She does not have Autism. She just looks like she has Autism."

R: "Ok, just to be clear then, Autism is diagnosed based on how it looks. This girl looks like she has Autism, but she does not.

D: "Correct."

R: "Moving on. Do you agree a child with an underlying disorder, a predisposition if you will, can develop Autism-like symptoms that are not really Autism from his/her vaccines, as in this case?"

D: "I believe it's extraordinarily rare. This may be the only case."

R: "So can we assume you disagree that other children with an Autism diagnosis maybe actually don't have Autism, but just look like it too?"

D: "Yes, we're much better at diagnosing it now. If a child has Autism, we know."

R: "But just not in this case?"

D: "Right. This is that crazy exception to the rule. She had an underlying disorder that was aggravated by her vaccines making her look like she had autism. She actually doesn't have Autism, and the medical doctors who diagnosed her with having Autism were wrong, although in every other case, they are right. Rest assured, this is one in a million."