Comments on: This is a theory: Autism and ultrasound

By: Karola

Karola — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:41:51 +0000

I came up with my Autism/Ultrasound connection theory alone. I am not a scientists, it just seemed to make sense. I started doing my own research and findings are pointing towards a connection. Speaking to those who perform ultrasounds, I was told that all fetuses try to escape or avoid being bombarded with sonic waves. I see porpoise and whale beachings as similar behaviour. That is, marine animals trying to escape sonic waves from submarines. To put it another way, if I was swimming underwater in a pool and blasted with ultrasonic waves, I would probably jump out as quickly as possible.

Only those who survive with Autism are here as proof of the connection. The rest unfortunately, didn’t make it out alive.

By: Emily

Emily — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:48:12 +0000

I’ve looked at who those reviewers of the dissertation/book (the same, yes?) are. Anyone can, and given the claims, should. It’s not bickering to ask real questions and expect real answers.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:25:30 +0000

@Katherine Poehlmann,
I guess it’s rather late to say this, but certainly appreciate what you’ve posted. A lot of us feel so often barraged by theories and speculations about the causes of autism — and especially about the vaccine hypothesis —that there’s a tendency to respond with a lot of fervor. Very best wishes and look forward to reading about your work in published form——

By: Katherine Poehlmann

Katherine Poehlmann — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:48:11 +0000

I thought this site would be a good place to start exploring some hypotheses about autism causes. A colleague with PhD’s in chemistry, biology, and physics has performed lab experiments convincing him (and me) that u/s could be harmful to fetal brain tissue. In my first posting, I included his opinion that u/s is big business and some studies are dubious. It was a mistake to introduce a biased comment, and I apologize for stirring up angry emotions.

Also, since the terms “online” and “distance learning” are often derided, I posted some of my background info to assure participants that I was a serious researcher. I enrolled in the CCNH as a means to an end. As a grad student, I could gain access to university library materials and got student discounts to attend medical conferences where I could meet experts in the field of infectious diseases.

A doctorate, even from a non-Ivy League school, got me past the gatekeepers to ask prominent medical professionals to evaluate my work. Drs. Joel B. Baseman and Joseph G. Tully reviewed my doctoral dissertation. Three of my book reviewers are profiled on my web site. Dr. Harold W. Clark wrote the Foreword.

The point is, the school attended doesn’t matter. It is the knowledge obtained and how it is used that makes the difference. In 1997, CCNH was one of the few accredited colleges offering online degrees to the house-bound disabled. Now all the major universities have distance learning programs.

It has been my experience as a systems engineer that those who are dedicated to a particular field of study are often unaware of findings in another area. Someone outside those insular fields can perhaps propose linkages leading to new research. I have no lab and no funding. My goal is to seek the truth and report it as accurately as possible, as a public service.

This is my last posting to this site. I have no time for bickering. Thanks to all who provided useful input to my autism research project.

By: Regan

Regan — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:14:29 +0000

Brusque? Abrupt? Direct?

How about “cutting through the static”? .

Warm regards.

By: Emily

Emily — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:27:21 +0000

Regan, you have a point. Some are courtly. I don’t know them, but I’ve heard rumors about them. All the ones I know are just…blunt. Brusque? Abrupt? Direct? I’m trying to think of all the adjectives that have been applied to me. And some nouns, too. Indeed.

By: jaymee

jaymee — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:47:24 +0000

http://www.physorg.com/news144495604.html

By: Regan

Regan — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:19:17 +0000

In defense of scientists–some scientists are blunt and some are courtly, just like most other Joes (we’ve known both kinds)–the point is that they have to fearless and skeptical in considering the substantive points and what the data supports. Heated discussion and strong feelings are not unheard of.

Practicing researchers in the sciences, in my observation and experience, take care with control of bias, and consider the data that do not substantiate their hypotheses to be informative, and of at least of equal value to that which does–because the goal is elucidating nature, not supporting personal constructs no matter how attractive. They try to be clear on the limitations of that known, and usually the interest is…disinterested. Since it’s still a human enterprise, it’s not perfect but it’s the goal.

By: jaymee

jaymee — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:47:07 +0000

well Emily… i guess the gap between math and science is even bigger than i realized.

By: Emily

Emily — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:26:34 +0000

Every time someone legitimately challenges anything the shills are selling, the peanut gallery comes on here and whines about the “negativity” and the “hostility.” I’m just being a scientist, talking to another scientist (a researcher in infectious disease, right?). This is how real scientists talk to each other. We’re not known for our social skills, but we’re pretty big on digging deep for facts. We discuss things quite bluntly, and we don’t overlook gaps and fallacies for the sake of social niceties. The touchy feely folks apparently don’t like that, but…I guess that’s why there aren’t too many touchy-feely types in science. Gotta have a Teflon sensibility. And yes, I know, Teflon is baaaaaaad.

Speaking of science and facts, that Age of Autism writeup is a bit short on both.