Mini-strokes and speech loss

[Guest guest]

I think the mini-strokes theory is worth research and discovery too. I

can see how I could have applied it to my son, wrongly though, as his

speech lapses were obviously yeast and mercury driven. (that known in

retrospect). The danger we all face is chasing too many rabbit trails.

I'm here because it says , and that was the particular

purpose that brought me to this board. I'm not on the MB12 or

FrequentDoseChelation (think that's what they are called), because that

isn't particularly the info I'm looking for. And I must say I stumbled

upon this board quite accidentally. But, it was due to the name and

stated content. For further information on strokes, I'd like a board

dedicated to that, which doesn't wash out the credible mercury

connection and subsequent treatment info here.

So far, I'm happy with the mercury rabbit trail. It has been very

productive at our house. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be

opportunity to discuss other issues. But, as someone started another

message board (and subsequently deleted it) for Dr. Moulden, it would

have been natural progression for the topic to move there it seems.

P.

JULIE GRIFFITHS wrote:

>

> Hi ,

>

> I do think many here are missing the point. I don't think it is

> important how the package is delivered but what's in the package. I

> think M. has a theory worth considering. It makes sense to me.

> Loss of speech is a common feature of strokes and certainly classic to

> the type of autism one sees directly after a vaccine. This loss of

> speech or at the very least speech problems have been described more

> often than anything else on these lists over the many years I have

> been on them and seem to be the one feature that is central to

> autism. I have never heard of any satisfactory explanation as to

> speech loss or speech problems in autism. The idea of a

> vaccine-induced mini-stroke in autism ould be therefore be plausible.

>

> I will keep considering this theory until the day when an otherwise

> convincing cause of autism is revealed. Obviously we can never

> conclusively say what causes autism as the only way to do this is by

> virtue of a randomized controlled trial and for ethical reasons this can

> never be approved. It may be M.'s theory or it may not be

> his theory in the end that rules the day. However I shall keep an open

> mind until that day comes.

> >

> > While it may seem superfluous to include the BA in his credentials , I

> > think it worthwhile to distinguish the fact that he has medical

> > training (M.D) and three years of academic research in neuroscience

> (PhD.)

> >

> > Best,

> >

> >

>

> zpapacarroll schrieb:

> >

> >

> > Hi -

> >

> > I'm not sure that flaming is what is happening here. I did see the

> > comment about starting one's own group, but I didn't take it as

> > though this person is unwelcome here - just that this discussion is

> > really drowning out the rest of what happens on this group, which is

> > fine, I would think, provided it slows down at some reasonable point

> > in time. Otherwise it does seem to make sense to start a new group

> > and those that are not interested can continue in this group, and

> > those that are interested can join the other as well or instead.

> >

> > I think what is being objected to are the posts that:

> >

> > 1) seem to consistently full of credentials - I doubt there is anyone

> > here naive enough to give a whit whether someone has a doctorate and a

> > medical degree or what. Loads of us in this group have several

> > graduate degrees, and we (rightly) base our analyses on the validity

> > of claims, not on how many letters one makes a point of *repeatedly*

> > trumpeting, especially when there is an absence of substantive

> > discussion. I've really never seen a professional who has a doctorate

> > and MD add their bachelor's and master's degrees in their credentials.

> > It looks gratuitous because for all intents everyone who has one of

> > the terminal degrees has the preceding ones. It looks like a sales

> > pitch to add lots of letters after the name - at least in my academic

> > world that is how it looks, or it appears that this is a person that

> > thinks that credentials can stand in place of arguments, and

> >

> > 2) when people do value substantive discussion (as I know you do), a

> > person makes a claim, and then if there is no ipso facto agreement,

> > the person is asked to defend their claim. This is not only

> > reasonable, it is the basis of science. Instead what we see here are

> > lots of references like -I am the only one who knows, I invented x...-

> > and -I can't tell you because it is all trade secrets-. I think it is

> > right to then ask why this person has come to the group if they have

> > no intention of defending the claims that they make, but instead want

> > people to become a paying client. This makes it seem as though this

> > is largely about the solicitation of business. If this is not what

> > is doing, then fine, but as it sits, I think people are

> > rightfully suspicious.

> >

> > I don't think that insistent demands to back up claims counts as

> > bullying. I don't recall seeing anyone denounce this person based on

> > the fact that his thinking differed from Andy's - it is the lack of

> > substance to substantiate his claims that are the basis of the

> > complaints. When he fails to answer any of the queries in response to

> > his assertions in any meaningful way it is correct to ask why this is

> > happening.

> >

> > I'm all for letting the man speak (and I think lots of others are

> > too), and evaluating what he says. So far I've seen little save a bit

> > of digging his own grave. I hope people don't give into their

> > desperate hopes to help their children by rushing right out to write

> > checks to this person, absent any rational reason to do so, as we

> > haven't seen any.

> >

> > And now it looks worryingly like he has copied personal email

> > correspondence onto this group (which I have to say looks like he's

> > saying this person thinks highly of me, and you should too, instead of

> > actually giving us direct reasons to do so), which ought to remain out

> > of the public domain unless the other person has agreed to their

> > publication - and the post does not state this to be the case, and it

> > should if he has permission.

> >

> > At the very best there seems to be a lot of questionable judgment on

> > 's part.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I agree. What I dont agree with is the shutting down ...doors

> > > > closed and

> > > > > > not letting this guy have a chance to speak without getting

> > > > attacked.

> > > > > > Some of

> > > > > > us " under-educated " parents would have liked to ask him

> > > > questions

> > > > > > etc. But the

> > > > > > atmosphere here is always so negative when some new idea is

> > > > brought up.

> > > > > > The " more educated " but might I add ..that doesnt make one

> > > > smarter..

> > > > > > get defensive

> > > > > > right off the bat. Would it really have hurt to listen to what

> > > > this

> > > > > > man has to say

> > > > > > and maybe we could get a better understanding? Does this man

> seem

> > > > > > threatening to you?

> > > > > > I do believe he responded to Andy's post in a " lets work

> > > > together

> > > > > > attitude "

> > > > > > If I were him, I would not bother to come back and post answers

> > > > to

> > > > > > questions..

> > > > > > this group is like a den of lions for Gosh sakes. Minds are like

> > > > > > parachutes.. they only

> > > > > > function when open.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 38 and Mom to three

> > > > > > Tasha 23..new Mommy ( means I am a Grammy )

> > > > > > Casey-Mae 13..sweet as pie

> > > > > > Elijah 2.. ASD and beautiful

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Re: [ ] Moulden-Cutler Controversy

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >So everybody, I know we are all mad as hell and aren't going to

> > > > take

> > > > > > >it anymore, as Faye Dunaway said in the 70's movie Network, but

> > > > let's

> > > > > > >not beat each other up.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Faye Dunaway actually never uttered the words. It was

> Finch.

> > > > > > Good flick, BTW.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My point it, as mad as anyone is, getting the facts absolutely

> > > > right

> > > > > > is the most important thing. Ever.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --

> > > > > > Ralph Nader on the need for moral courage:

> > > > > > http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=MQFG4Piwegs

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >