Right before I went to bed last night, this little gem popped up in my news feed.
It took five minutes of me skimming their findings to comment:
“Did it ever occur to them that less kids are being Dx’d with SLD because as toxic exposures increase, the kids with SLD who were likely something mild like a dyslexia kid, or ADHD, are now the kids with a more severe Dx. The shift in Dx is because the child is more severely affected.”
Anyone who spends a couple days looking into how the forward thinking Doctors, Practioners, and Parents of today are treating autism successfully, they will see what we’ve all come to learn –which is that autism is a disorder of toxic overload. Research supports it. Labs support it. Clinical outcomes supports it. The fact that my 19 year old son’s ATEC score dropped from 100 to 51 after 4 months of a detox protocol really supports it.
(Link to the first TMR study on the Ioncleanse by AMD here. My son was in the second study. The second study showed even more improvements for kids of all ages with a more frequent protocol.)
SLD very likely included the “Canary Kids” Simply put, there are kids more genetically susceptible to toxins. Genes do not change drastically in 20 years, environmental exposure can –and has. With less exposures these were very likely the dyslexia kids. Dysgraphia, Reading Problems, Comprehension Issues, etc. (Offically “Includes disorders resulting in difficulties with listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or doing mathematical calculations.”)
This study looks at the numbers in 2000 and how they’ve shifted since then. My son was born in 1996. The kids in school in 2000 in the SLD category were the kids BEFORE the addition of the birth dose of Hep B. They were the beginning of the wave of new “Autism”. There was already a category for Autism in 2000. I promise you, no one would have confused Autism for SLD, even in 2000. There is no way you’d look at my toe running, hand flapping, non-verbal kid and say, “Hm. Call it SLD, we don’t know what it is!”
This article references NeuroTribes and the idea that the change in the diagnosing criteria in 1987 is the reason for the shift. 1987 vs. 2000. Are you telling me that no one in the school system or medical community picked up the DSM-IV until 2000? The shift we are seeing in the numbers in the diagnostic categories for this study shows what happens when you take genetically susceptible kids and pile more and more toxins into their bodies and brains. Kids are WORSE. Yes, the same number of kids are affected, but the severity is the issue.
So, I’m going to ask you to consider that our DNA has not changed significantly but that toxic exposure HAS increased.
Consider that some kids are genetically susceptible.
Consider that the numbers shifted each year because as toxic exposure went up, kids tipped from having a less severe issue like “reading comprehension problems” to full blown “autism”.
Consider the implications. Whether you believe it is vaccines, plastics chemicals, GMOs or whatever… Consider it.
So, thank you Chapman! Your study supports what myself and many in the field have been screaming from the mountain tops –you just were not equipped with all the info when you interpreted your findings. Please go back and look at it again with this information.
Genetically susceptible kids exist. FIND THEM. Pretty please.
Is The Autism Epidemic Real by RFK Jr.
California’s Autism Increase Not Due To Better Counting. UC Davis, M.I.N.D. Institute (way more science-y than Chapman 😉 )