The Exterminators

[Grimork]

Regardless of all that, I wouldn't say it's out of the realm of possibility that traits associated with autism are heritable, in fact I'd be shocked if none of them are, especially if we are using the new broad (and in my opinion problematic*) definition of ASD to include all the high-functioning individuals. But the severely disabled ones, I don't think that's natural at all. Severely autistic people pretty much can't have children, so I don't see how that would get passed down.

I think this here is the key to what I am saying exactly. I know a high functioning autistic (barely noticeable but you could tell under certain situations) who gave birth to an even more autistic daughter (who does not live on her own/work a job/etc is "asexual"), rest of the family is mostly normal; there are 4 other children. I know this example is anecdotal, but even John Massaro, the anti-vaccine guy we promote, has admitted to "seeing what he believes" in other words anecdotal evidence. If it was in the water (so to speak), I would think most or even all the family would be affected but nope, just those two. I think even though they haven't found the "scientific" evidence of an autism gene it could either exist or be a mutation such as cancer they are already calling autism as a "de novo" mutation anyways in circles; de novo meaning new hence it came from environment and didn't exist before. Mutations that are inherited are of course... what? Genetic. I don't need to wait on scientists who are underfunded, understaffed and blacklisted from labs to come out with the evidence before I can look and see with my own eyes a potential threat. We don't do any favors by turning a blind eye to it by only talking about environmental factors. I think men and women should also think twice about choosing high functioning autistics as mates to minimize the damage, or at least being aware of the risks of the union, such as a person having a high likelihood of downs syndrome in the family.

[Robert Burns]

Regardless of all that, I wouldn't say it's out of the realm of possibility that traits associated with autism are heritable, in fact I'd be shocked if none of them are, especially if we are using the new broad (and in my opinion problematic*) definition of ASD to include all the high-functioning individuals. But the severely disabled ones, I don't think that's natural at all. Severely autistic people pretty much can't have children, so I don't see how that would get passed down.

I think this here is the key to what I am saying exactly. I know a high functioning autistic (barely noticeable but you could tell under certain situations) who gave birth to an even more autistic daughter (who does not live on her own/work a job/etc is "asexual"), rest of the family is mostly normal; there are 4 other children. I know this example is anecdotal, but even John Massaro, the anti-vaccine guy we promote, has admitted to "seeing what he believes" in other words anecdotal evidence. If it was in the water (so to speak), I would think most or even all the family would be affected but nope, just those two. I think even though they haven't found the "scientific" evidence of an autism gene it could either exist or be a mutation such as cancer they are already calling autism as a "de novo" mutation anyways in circles; de novo meaning new hence it came from environment and didn't exist before. Mutations that are inherited are of course... what? Genetic. I don't need to wait on scientists who are underfunded, understaffed and blacklisted from labs to come out with the evidence before I can look and see with my own eyes a potential threat. We don't do any favors by turning a blind eye to it by only talking about environmental factors. I think men and women should also think twice about choosing high functioning autistics as mates to minimize the damage, or at least being aware of the risks of the union, such as a person having a high likelihood of downs syndrome in the family.

The answer to why they wouldn't all have it if it's environmental is this: not everyone in a family is necessarily going to be exposed to all the same things, in the same amounts, or at the same stages of development, just like they don't share all the same genes. There are way too many variables in this regard to even begin to name them.

I don't need to wait either. I don't need to wait decades and decades more watching the fully funded establishment scientists going on their wild goose chases and coming back with the same old worthless data and ever more conjecture every single year. It's not like not finding it means they just haven't found it yet. The more they look and don't find, the more likely it is that they're simply wrong, and the less I'm going to worry about it as a potential problem for us.

I don't want to argue about this anymore. I'm not going to be convinced by anything less than solid scientific evidence.

Edit: I do want to clarify this one more thing: obviously environmental damage to the parents can then produce birth defects in their children. But if a mother or father is exposed to radiation which causes a birth defect later in their children, what I'm saying is that's not natural. The establishment wants us to believe this stuff is natural. That's why they come up with flowery terms like "neurodiverse". I'm not arguing that we should not be careful in screening out mates with signs of any defects. Even if a trait isn't passed down, I wouldn't think a mentally ill person would make a great parent. If all you're saying is that autistic people shouldn't have children, then that I agree with.

[Grimork]

I don't want to argue about this anymore. I'm not going to be convinced by anything less than solid scientific evidence.

You can stop talking to me about this at any time, but I still have some things to say about it. So, I will proceed for the possible benefit of others reading. Feel free to ignore me further on this topic.

The answer to why they wouldn't all have it if it's environmental is this: not everyone in a family is necessarily going to be exposed to all the same things, in the same amounts, or at the same stages of development, just like they don't share all the same genes. There are way too many variables in this regard to even begin to name them.

To me, this answer is unscientific and also inadequate. If environmental toxins are bad enough it often affects many members of the family. Not just two members, sometimes it will even affect humans AND animals on the property. I will post one example below where a woman's 5 children were all affected by pollution at JUST their school building (However many hours are spent at school, which is less than at home typically). Not even taking into account sharing a close family life such as the case in the father and daughter family example I mentioned to you earlier.

Web capture_12-7-2022_63951_friedmanrubin.com.jpeg (86.1 KiB) Viewed 1349 times

You can read more about the toxic school environment here if interested in the case: https://friedmanrubin.com/wp-content/up ... plaint.pdf
https://www.king5.com/article/news/heal ... aaaf13ffcd

Edit: I do want to clarify this one more thing: obviously environmental damage to the parents can then produce birth defects in their children. But if a mother or father is exposed to radiation which causes a birth defect later in their children, what I'm saying is that's not natural. The establishment wants us to believe this stuff is natural. That's why they come up with flowery terms like "neurodiverse".

Correct. Nobody here said that it is natural. At least, not on this forum. The establishment lies, this is well documented, however that doesn't make what I am saying any less true. The establishment often tells "half-truths" to make the lies easier to swallow. Discounting autism being passed in genes is a mistake to me, unless it is proven impossible to do so. Unnatural causes originally, doesn't mean it didn't become inheritable or genetic.

[Robert Burns]

You can stop talking to me about this at any time, but I still have some things to say about it. So, I will proceed for the possible benefit of others reading. Feel free to ignore me further on this topic.

Well, I feel like I should keep responding because this is important, and especially because now you are misrepresenting my argument.

To me, this answer is unscientific and also inadequate. If environmental toxins are bad enough it often affects many members of the family. Not just two members, sometimes it will even affect humans AND animals on the property. I will post one example below where a woman's 5 children were all affected by pollution at JUST their school building (However many hours are spent at school, which is less than at home typically). Not even taking into account sharing a close family life such as the case in the father and daughter family example I mentioned to you earlier.

Web capture_12-7-2022_63951_friedmanrubin.com.jpeg
Web capture_12-7-2022_63951_friedmanrubin.com.jpeg (86.1 KiB) Viewed 24 times

You can read more about the toxic school environment here if interested in the case: https://friedmanrubin.com/wp-content/up ... plaint.pdf
https://www.king5.com/article/news/heal ... aaaf13ffcd

This is just wrong. Common effects are not going to be even close to 100% the same in most cases, even with 1st-degree relatives. Some, yes, but most? One example of one school with one particular problem cannot be extrapolated like this. Also, stories like this, a whole school getting poisoned, are much more likely to be documented and get large amounts of attention than a case of a couple of family members in one family developing brain damage from chronic exposure to a low amount of some toxin that the other family members, for whatever reason, were not exposed to in the same amount or in the same way. Often those cases are not even identified at all, which brings us right back to the original topic of misdiagnosis.

Individual family members go different places, and they have different habits and vulnerabilities. Your example actually supports this point too: the kids would have all been affected, yes, but the parents weren't, presumably because most of them aren't spending 8 hours at their kids' school every day. That's already 33% of the day spent in totally different places. Further, sometimes the whole family moves to a whole new house, town, or state after their first or second child, so the environment changes completely. Some people are more susceptible to the effects of certain toxins than others (i.e. babies vs. adults). Some toxins are only absorbed in tiny amounts (or not at all) by some family members, while absorption is much higher in others (e.g. a baby is much more likely to eat lead paint chips on the carpet than a 10-year-old).

I could go on and on giving examples like this, but the specific examples are not the point. The point is that there are a whole host of reasons why the whole family wouldn't have the same exposure and symptoms from something in their shared environment. They only have a higher likelihood when compared to someone outside the immediately family, and therefore it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned studies.

Correct. Nobody here said that it is natural. At least, not on this forum. The establishment lies, this is well documented, however that doesn't make what I am saying any less true. The establishment often tells "half-truths" to make the lies easier to swallow. Discounting autism being passed in genes is a mistake to me, unless it is proven impossible to do so. Unnatural causes originally, doesn't mean it didn't become inheritable or genetic.

I'm not discounting that, and I never was. I've been emphasizing from the very beginning that I'm focusing on the root causes here. Since you did not specify this before, I thought you were saying that some autism is very likely just purely genetic in origin, to which I said that, if there truly is some specific gene or combination of genes (not just unspecified damaged genes from environmental toxins, which is different) that are heritable and produce autism-like symptoms, then it should be 1: positively identifiable and not based on conjecture, and 2: considered a separate disorder from environmental autism, because the root cause is different. Similar symptoms do not mean it's the same disorder. You could call it type 1 vs type 2 autism. I've been mainly arguing against the existence of type 1 autism, the type the establishment argues for, and you've been telling me that I'm wrong without clarifying that you are actually talking about type 2 autism being heritable.

It's common knowledge that exposure to many environmental things can cause birth defects, and if that particular environmental thing causes damage at the genetic level, then of course those damaged genes can be passed down to another generation. It didn't even cross my mind that you would think I didn't already know that. But heritable genetic defects caused by radiation poisoning, for example, are not the same kind of genetic disorders as ones like sickle cell. They are in totally different categories. Lumping them together and discounting the differences between the two is what I have a problem with. There is also no solid proof that autism is even caused by damaged genes. It could very well be the case, but either way, I'm not ever going to say autistic people should have children.

[Grimork]

Well, I feel like I should keep responding because this is important, and especially because now you are misrepresenting my argument.

Not trying to. Just interpreting it as I understand it.

This is just wrong. Common effects are not going to be even close to 100% the same in most cases, even with 1st-degree relatives. Some, yes, but most? One example of one school with one particular problem cannot be extrapolated like this. Also, stories like this, a whole school getting poisoned, are much more likely to be documented and get large amounts of attention than a case of a couple of family members in one family developing brain damage from chronic exposure to a low amount of some toxin that the other family members, for whatever reason, were not exposed to in the same amount or in the same way. Often those cases are not even identified at all, which brings us right back to the original topic of misdiagnosis.

It's not wrong, it's a valid and real example. Documented even. OF COURSE, GENETIC AUTISM IS RARE. I never said it wasn't!!!! I Keep saying over and over main cause environmental. Just like this example is rare BUT it happens, and this is not the only example either.

Individual family members go different places, and they have different habits and vulnerabilities. Your example actually supports this point too: the kids would have all been affected, yes, but the parents weren't, presumably because most of them aren't spending 8 hours at their kids' school every day.

NOPE. Parents aren't affected often times because they are EVEN more genetically different than the full-blooded children are from each other who come from same stock. Me and my husband are both White, but we're still from different parts of Europe and a different White mix.

That's already 33% of the day spent in totally different places. Further, sometimes the whole family moves to a whole new house, town, or state after their first or second child, so the environment changes completely. Some people are more susceptible to the effects of certain toxins than others (i.e. babies vs. adults). Some toxins are only absorbed in tiny amounts (or not at all) by some family members, while absorption is much higher in others (e.g. a baby is much more likely to eat lead paint chips on the carpet than a 10-year-old).

OK, I don't see what this has to do with the autistic family. Are you trying to say the evidence in the lawsuit wasn't real? Hon, they are suing Monsanto one of the biggest corps anywhere, if you have any kind of loophole, they will cream you and not pay a dime. Everybody thinks the ADL is big and bad, Monsanto is right there with it if not worse.

I could go on and on giving examples like this, but the specific examples are not the point. The point is that there are a whole host of reasons why the whole family wouldn't have the same exposure and symptoms from something in their shared environment. They only have a higher likelihood when compared to someone outside the immediately family, and therefore it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned studies.

Again, I don't see how this discounts father and daughter passing autism. You might be able to explain why the other brothers and sisters didn't get it, but that's not my point. My point is this daughter rolled poorly on the genetic lottery and was born autistic from her autistic father.

I'm not discounting that, and I never was. I've been emphasizing from the very beginning that I'm focusing on the root causes here. Since you did not specify this before,

Uhhh, that's not true. You need to read again.

While I do agree that most of the autism these days is from environment. This is not scientific proof that some cases of autism are not genetic.

Now who's being misrepresented? At least I have proof I said it clearly. I just don't always understand what your point is all the time. Sheesh, we're not from the same brain stem, it's gonna happen.

EXAMPLE # 2 That I agreed with environmental causes not only genetics and YOU NEVER SAW IT.

I guess what I am saying is that unlike Kevin, I can see the tremendous rise in autism and other extremely awful health problems faced by children that SHOULD be healthier and still not turn a blind eye to other possible causes. We should maybe investigate all sides of the problem pyramid not just one. Even if you want to prioritize environment as the main cause, very well, I think that's correct. It seems to be the most risk and the highest growth, but I don't think, genetics in this case, are something that should be ignored or ridiculed as absurd or anything of that sort. All I am saying. I am the very first person who would say protect your children. Hence why I am giving birth at home and staying the hell away from the medical industry if possible. I don't even barely use a cell phone these days because of radiation. I am a "crazy" person for the sake of trying to protect my kids.

Maybe you are too quick to argue with people and should read what they are writing more closely. I READ all your words, I just don't always understand what the f*** you are trying to say with them NO OFFENSE. But, this is the 2nd time I believe you have accused me of misrepresenting you, like I am malicious or something and I am very pregnant and that is very tedious. Because it's not true. If I wanted to be malicious, I don't need to be passive aggressive. I would just tell you like it is. In fact, I am the one who you are glossing over their posts which they have taken a lot of time and thought to write. I know I am not a good writer, but it takes me a lot of effort.

You could call it type 1 vs type 2 autism. I've been mainly arguing against the existence of type 1 autism, the type the establishment argues for, and you've been telling me that I'm wrong without clarifying that you are actually talking about type 2 autism being heritable.

I'm telling you, you're wrong because that doesn't exist. Why do we not have Leukemia 1 and 2? It's pointless and causes division. The point is autism is autism it mostly comes from environment BUT I AM ARGUING that it can ALSO be passed genetically. There is type 1 and 2 diabetes because they are very different. You are more likely to get type 2 if your family members have it, but type 1 is typically juvenile and is a defect regardless of lifestyle.

[Robert Burns]

Well, I feel like I should keep responding because this is important, and especially because now you are misrepresenting my argument.

Not trying to. Just interpreting it as I understand it.

This is just wrong. Common effects are not going to be even close to 100% the same in most cases, even with 1st-degree relatives. Some, yes, but most? One example of one school with one particular problem cannot be extrapolated like this. Also, stories like this, a whole school getting poisoned, are much more likely to be documented and get large amounts of attention than a case of a couple of family members in one family developing brain damage from chronic exposure to a low amount of some toxin that the other family members, for whatever reason, were not exposed to in the same amount or in the same way. Often those cases are not even identified at all, which brings us right back to the original topic of misdiagnosis.

It's not wrong, it's a valid and real example. Documented even. OF COURSE, GENETIC AUTISM IS RARE. I never said it wasn't!!!! I Keep saying over and over main cause environmental. Just like this example is rare BUT it happens, and this is not the only example either.

Individual family members go different places, and they have different habits and vulnerabilities. Your example actually supports this point too: the kids would have all been affected, yes, but the parents weren't, presumably because most of them aren't spending 8 hours at their kids' school every day.

NOPE. Parents aren't affected often times because they are EVEN more genetically different than the full-blooded children are from each other who come from same stock. Me and my husband are both White, but we're still from different parts of Europe and a different White mix.

Ok. I didn't say anything to the contrary.

That's already 33% of the day spent in totally different places. Further, sometimes the whole family moves to a whole new house, town, or state after their first or second child, so the environment changes completely. Some people are more susceptible to the effects of certain toxins than others (i.e. babies vs. adults). Some toxins are only absorbed in tiny amounts (or not at all) by some family members, while absorption is much higher in others (e.g. a baby is much more likely to eat lead paint chips on the carpet than a 10-year-old).

OK, I don't see what this has to do with the autistic family. Are you trying to say the evidence in the lawsuit wasn't real? Hon, they are suing Monsanto one of the biggest corps anywhere, if you have any kind of loophole, they will cream you and not pay a dime. Everybody thinks the ADL is big and bad, Monsanto is right there with it if not worse.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Come on. Unless you think I'm retarded, you should know full well that's not what I was saying.

Also, I'm not your little boy, so don't call me "hon".

I will try to make this clear, one last time: I am pointing out examples of other possibilities in addition to the ones you mentioned that prove not every case of environmental exposure to harmful things looks like the ones you're referencing. I'm not saying that nothing else is physically possible, and it's ridiculous that I should even have to say that. If I say the sky is blue, you wouldn't say "NOPE. Often times the sky is gray because it's completely overcast with rain clouds." Would you? I didn't say that it wasn't, for crying out loud, I'm actually making the point that there is more than one possibility, and you're responding like I'm an insane person that can only hold one belief at a time.

[Jim Mathias]

And it's time for a breather here.

[Robert Burns]

This is from Kevin's new broadcast today:

I was also making the point that neither the epidemic of autism nor the epidemic of sex perversion that our people are experiencing can possibly be genetic in origin, since gene frequencies don’t, and can’t, change as fast as the incidence of these diseases/defects have changed in recent years. I stand by my statement, which wasn’t speculation.

Yes, it has been proved that some family lines seem to have a greater susceptibility to autism. Yes, it has been shown that some inherited mental characteristics — such as inborn talent for mathematics or engineering — tend also to dispose their bearers to have an increased likelihood of autism. Yes, it is indubitably true that being male — a genetic characteristic, of course — vastly increases the chances of being stricken with the disease. But all that is not evidence that autism is a genetic disease. Not at all. It merely means that some people have a higher inborn, genetic susceptibility to whatever it is we are doing to our children now that has caused the near-vertical spike in autism cases.

Think of it this way. Suppose that some bureaucrat gets the idea that hitting the exact center of every single kindergartener’s skull with a three-pound hammer before classes every day helps “cure racism” or some such nonsense, and then proceeds to institute the policy. I am sure that some of the helpless children would die, and massive numbers of them would have their brains damaged and their personalities destroyed beyond all recognition. Concussive syndromes of all kinds, once nearly restricted to boxers and football players, would become more common. Amidst all the carnage, we would find that some children, say those with genes for somewhat weaker skulls, would suffer from these syndromes far more than others. Does this mean that these concussive syndromes would be “genetically caused”? Preposterous. They would be caused by hitting our children’s heads with hammers. The genes resulting in somewhat weaker than average skulls wouldn’t have caused a single problem in most cases, if the hammer-hitting had never caught on.

So it is also with autism and sex perversion. The near-vertical rises in these sicknesses indicates that it is something we are doing to our children which is causing them.

This is one thing I've been saying: genetic susceptibility \= a genetic disorder.

I've also been trying to point out that just because there's some imaginable hypothetical way in which autism could be directly passed down genetically in some cases does not mean that it actually is. You can't just leap to declaring that some autism (no matter how small a percentage) must be genetic based on surface-level observations and conjecture. Autism genes, "de novo" or not, can't just be assumed to exist, and the way they cause autism can't just be left up to interpretation as if it doesn't matter. You cannot just "see what you believe". Our people need to have higher standards for belief than that.

Again I'd like to point out that both Kevin and I hold the same basic understanding about autistic people's success as parents:

I said last week that it is “valuable to consider also, in light of what is my main point today, how successful autistic people are at having and raising children.” Some misinterpreted my words as meaning that autistic people were quite successful at having and raising children. Well, no, that’s not what I meant, and no, they’re obviously not — and that was related to my main point, which was that the System which misrules us is actively hostile to the birth and successful raising of White children. With minuscule exceptions, profoundly autistic people do not form families or have children.

I would also add to this that less profoundly autistic people are more likely to be capable of having children and therefore are more likely to do so, but regardless of whether their own children end up being autistic (and the real reasons for that), they'll still be likely to have serious issues, because an autistic person is by definition less fit to be a parent and less fit in general than a person with no such mental problems. I don't think anybody except for left-wing nuts have advocated for autistic people having children.