Robert DeNiro and the drama of the Tribeca Film Festival

Discuss autism theories, media stories, and efforts to put ASD on the government agenda here.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

Forum rules
Please limit quotes from articles to five paragraphs. Also, researchers may post study information here.
Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Robert DeNiro and the drama of the Tribeca Film Festival

Postby Winnie » Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:25 pm

dgdavis64 wrote:
And look at the contradictions in this few paragraphs... which is it?

According to the figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.


or this?

Later The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s claim and apologised after a Sunday Times investigation showed that his research had been backed with £55,000 from lawyers


Who knows?


Read the article dg:

Later The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s claim and apologised after a Sunday Times investigation showed that his research had been backed with £55,000 from lawyers, and that the children in the study used as evidence against the vaccine were also claimants in the lawsuit.

At the time Wakefield denied any conflict of interest and said that the money went to his hospital, not to him personally. No disclosure was made, however, of the vastly greater sums that he was receiving directly from the lawyers.


I can point you to the info, but I can't do anything about your reading comprehension.

I'm still shocked that after the years and years you have invested in perseverating on and spreading this nonsense, that you aren't even familiar with basic aspects of Wakefield's case.

Maybe you should invest your time trying out a new learning curve, like something that pertains to autism and something that might actually benefit your children. They are about a year away from transitioning to high school -- and they are going to need your advocacy and support in the upcoming years.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Robert DeNiro and the drama of the Tribeca Film Festival

Postby dgdavis64 » Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:50 pm

So they just let it drop as "no disclosure" was made? No, Wakefield would be in jail if they had an unpaid parking ticket to put him there.

They went after Wakefield for the sole reason of protecting toxic poison vaccines and to send a loud message for other doctors to fall in line or else.

Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.


http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 0/fulltext

I can point you to the truth, but I can't do anything about your dishonesty.

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Robert DeNiro and the drama of the Tribeca Film Festival

Postby Winnie » Sat Apr 02, 2016 3:04 pm

dgdavis64 wrote:So they just let it drop as "no disclosure" was made? No, Wakefield would be in jail if they had an unpaid parking ticket to put him there.

They stripped him of his license to practice medicine. This was not a matter of civil law. :idea:

dgdavis64 wrote:I can point you to the truth, but I can't do anything about your dishonesty.

lol, yes, you have demonstrated time and again how truthful and knowledgeable you are.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Santosg
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:33 am

Re: Robert DeNiro and the drama of the Tribeca Film Festival

Postby Santosg » Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:13 pm

Winnie wrote:Wait – but on your point of anecdotal information --......So, even when some children show some improvements, do these improvements rise to the level of Neubrander’s hype?


The parameters of the study posted by Rick, if I remember correctly, were the result of an 8 week study period. I would not dismiss the reported benefits as insignificant.

In terms of anecdotal information, again, I place a great deal of weight on it. We have little choice. There is basically no research conducted on the biomedical interventions for autism. It is not a matter of ignoring data but that its never produced in the first place. For my part, I don't even waste much time reading the latest in autism research since it provides very little actionable information. We know what works behaviorally and the discovery of some new 'gene' or 'complex' of genes actually is just rehashing old territory--for the most part. Besides, I think that the genetic basis (in terms of genes alone) of autism is massively exaggerated.

In the case of the B12, I can only speak from my own experience. I introduced the B12 on the standard 3 day interval. I saw minor improvements. I started doing it ever other day. Again, minor improvements. Anyway, for reasons not worth explaining, I went a month without giving him any shots. There was a regression in speech, though I think this was caused by factors beside the cessation of the B12 shot. I then started giving him a B12 shot on a daily basis. I saw a more marked improvement in attention and some improvement in speech. Since I saw such an improvement with the daily administration of the B12, I spoke with his DAN and asked that the we increase--experimentally--this daily dose to twice what is given in the Neubrander protocol. My son has now been doing this for a little over a month and a half and I've seen a lot of improvements, far more than what he'd experienced under any other cycle.

My son was a responder even at the lower levels of B12, but it did not seem to make dramatic difference. It took a lot of experiment to find a dose that really showed a 'big' improvement in a short amount of time. So, to answer your question, this higher dose of B12 given on a daily basis definitely lives up to the 'hype'. Except, it is not hype. It is not an exaggeration but simply the result of my own experience as a father trying to help his son. If I had not experimented with the timing and dosage I would never have found it.

I think it is important for parents to try different interventions--provided that they actually make sense of their child's developmental needs, history, and genetics.

BTW, the first week that I gave my son the B12 at the higher dosage, he woke up at 2 a.m. and stayed up until 4 a.m. It took a few days for his body to adjust, but he's done very well.

At any point, I could have just given up on administering the B12 shot, but it always made sense. I would have just tossed it out because of the inconvenience it caused me the first week. But again, I think it is important to persist.

I'm very glad that I've pursued biomedical interventions with my son. I'll take anecdote and experiment over the standard 'recommendations' any day of the week.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Robert DeNiro and the drama of the Tribeca Film Festival

Postby Winnie » Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:43 pm

Santosg wrote:
Winnie wrote:Wait – but on your point of anecdotal information --......So, even when some children show some improvements, do these improvements rise to the level of Neubrander’s hype?


The parameters of the study posted by Rick, if I remember correctly, were the result of an 8 week study period. I would not dismiss the reported benefits as insignificant.

It was the parents who reported no improvements -- on either measure (the ABC or SRS).

Santosg wrote:In terms of anecdotal information, again, I place a great deal of weight on it.

I also think anecdotal information can be valuable, and regard a number of parents on this forum (past and present)and parents in RL as credible when reporting details about their child and treatments. However, vetting the accuracy, credibility, and sometimes even the sanity, of online anecdotal reports, is a lot trickier than those in real life. It often does become very clear over time, however, when reading and participating in the same online venues and evaluating treatment claims over the years.

Santosg wrote:We know what works behaviorally and the discovery of some new 'gene' or 'complex' of genes actually is just rehashing old territory--for the most part. Besides, I think that the genetic basis (in terms of genes alone) of autism is massively exaggerated.

I think that a lot parents misunderstand what “genetic” research is inclusive of, and assume this just involves heritable conditions.

Santosg wrote:So, to answer your question, this higher dose of B12 given on a daily basis definitely lives up to the 'hype'. Except, it is not hype. Except, it is not hype. It is not an exaggeration but simply the result of my own experience as a father trying to help his son. If I had not experimented with the timing and dosage I would never have found it.

Don’t you think a month in is a little too early to tell? This is the hype I linked to earlier – quoting Neubrander in 2005 – and I don’t agree that mb12, in any study, or even in terms of what little unvalidated outcome data the Neubranders say they have collected from their practice over the past 10+ years, lives up to these claims -- not even close -- though very attractive to parents:
Neubrander said one injection is given every three days and the effects can be seen within five weeks. “My kids can lose their diagnosis [as autistic] within a year and a half to two and a half years and be in a normal classroom where nobody would know they had autism. When they stop the shots they regress in the same manner a diabetic who stops taking insulin would regress.

“When we first see these kids they can’t talk and now they are totally recovered. This is to the autism world what antibiotics was to the modern world.”


Santosg wrote:At any point, I could have just given up on administering the B12 shot, but it always made sense. I would have just tossed it out because of the inconvenience it caused me the first week. But again, I think it is important to persist.

Hoping your son does well – but I was wondering – how will you determine when it is time to stop daily injections? Especially considering developmental spurts and plateaus which are a part of every child's development?
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

FatherOf2
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:37 am

Re: Robert DeNiro and the drama of the Tribeca Film Festival

Postby FatherOf2 » Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:03 pm

The film Vaxxed should have been shown. It is America, for God sake! Whether vaccines cause autism or not is a debatable subject. But a debate will not happen until all sides are allowed to speak. Now DeNiro regrets pulling the film. At his age, with his celebrity status and wealth, he should have stood for what he believed. I didn't know that his son was autistic too. My sympathies to his and other autistic families.


Return to “Autism Articles, Studies & Politics”