*having problems with the format and it wouldn't let me edit the html of the original post, so I've saved that to draft and am reposting fresh. My apologies.
"They're not alarmed about children who were talking and potty trained as two year olds and are now non-verbal and in diapers as teenagers."
Anne Dachel wrote this earlier today, and it's part of the quote that I use in my previous post, Warped Reality.
One of the problems with the vaccines-did-this-to-my-kid extremist crowd at AoA is that they have a decided tendency to get the facts wrong repeatedly, to stretch the truth, to exaggerate their stories, to show an amazing inability with math, to go overboard with extreme statements, and to be complete asses while they do it, calling anyone who disagrees with their version of reality pharma shills. They really hate it when the media and health professionals disagree with them.
I've decided to hone in on this one sentence and really look at the case that they exaggerate, in part because of a conversation with Kathleen on whether most kids are potty trained at two. I mean, it's possible that some folks have had tremendously different experiences, but my three were between 4 and 7 before they got the hang of controlling their urination (and my wee one, at nearly 7, is still in a pullup at night). But of course, my children didn't develop along a normal trajectory, get vaccines and then regress. That must be it.
Does Dachel mean exactly 24 months? Or somewhere in there? Because very few children are potty trained at 24 months, issues or no issues. According to University of Michigan Health System, children aren't ready for potty training until 24-27 months. Starting before they are physically able to control on demand the external sphincters controlling both urination and defecation will do nothing but frustrate the parents and the child. Asking children to do things that their brains are not wired to do yet is, at best, an unpleasant experience for everyone around. Demanding they conform to impossible standards can rise to cruelty.
According to U of M: "The physical maturity and readiness skills needed for successful toilet learning appear at the same time in girls and boys-between 18 and 30 months of age. The average age for girls to be toilet trained is 29 months, and for boys it's 31 months. Keep in mind that these are averages. Ninety-eight percent of kids are trained by 36 months of age."
So does Dachel mean at 24 months or somewhere in between 24 and 36 months? Because it matters, it really does. Just like it matters if Katie Wright inflates membership numbers. Just like it matters when they insist that 10s of 1000s of children have had vaccines and regressed. There's no good evidence of that. And anecdotal reports are completely inadequate as they are so easily distorted over time.
And does Dachel mean perfect control, no accidents? Because that's beyond unlikely:
"How long does it usually take for a child to become reliably trained?
An average time frame for success in toilet training is three to six months. It is common, however, for children to continue to wet at night until they are five years old. By six years of age, most children (90%) do stay dry all night. During the toilet training process, many children refuse to train and even regress. This is usually only a temporary setback that is best handled by continuing encouragement and a "keep trying" attitude. If they become very resistant it is a sign to back off for a while (a few weeks to a couple of months), to avoid a power struggle. It is important not to shame your child or make them feel like a failure."
So, we can see that saying 2 year olds were potty trained and then a vaccine renders them as incontinent into their teenage years is troubling in many ways. Let's stipulate that she's right, the kids were actually potty trained with complete control at the age of two. How many autistic teenagers is she alleging were completely on track (and ahead developmentally) who immediately suffered an adverse effect so severe that it renders them incontinent long term in addition to being autistic? It would take substantial damage to the brain in order to do this. What mechanism is she asserting does this? Where are all these diapered nonverbal teenagers who were at the age of two verbal and potty-trained?
Why does this kind of spin and hyperbole even get a pass? How on the face of it is it not seen as absurd?
Of course, if you read enough of these people, you get the realization that autism to them is a fate worse than death. Dachel writes: "I kept waiting for some inkling of horror over what's happening to hundreds of thousands of our children."
Okay, I guess if you conceive of autism as being caused by a huge frakking global conspiracy that takes perfect kids (potty trained at 2!) and renders them nonverbal and diapered as teens, I guess you'd have to see it as a "horror." The problem is, once again, that there's no evidence that their version of reality exists anywhere but in their own minds.
And if you somehow haven't managed to figure out that AoA is beyond over the top yet, then all you have to do is go look at Stagliano's latest: "DNA from Pig Viruses Found in Paul Offit Merck RotaTeq Vaccine". It's replete with a picture of a naked baby with pig ears and nose. Nice. Just. Nice. Wow.