Thanks guys. I'm not at the end of the diagnostic process yet, but it is in sight, which is a big relief after so long. Wynda, I'm pretty angry about those eight years, too. Especially as this is technically rheumatological and my original rheumatologist was someone I saw very early on, before I even lost my job to this. The current one is ...#42? I've kinda lost count. Definitely in the 40s. It's shocking, no? I have joked that when I get the final diagnosis codes, I'm playing them in the megamillions.

...and in a further demonstration of my bitchiness, I removed your sales link; fuck you very much.

No It's not OK. The content on this site is copyright me and may not be reproduced, republished (including derivative work) or otherwise used in any way wiothotu the express written premission of me. Yes, I'm a bitch. I don't apologize for this.

Thanks for the nice comment. However, I removed the URL as this site does not support advertising. Have a nice day.

Still no gluten! We have been eating a lot more (mild -cos she's a wuss) curries and Asian food in general. Rice all around!

Six comments within two hours, all from the same IP address (Yes. Typepad tells you the IP for each poster). If there was doubt before that this was a scam, there is no doubt now. OSM

Thanks Laura, Yes it's been awhile. I hope all is well with you. Thanks for the tips. It looks like we are on the right track this time. GF/dairy free has definitely helped, whereas dairy free alone wasn't cutting it. We'll add dairy back in soon. If we can keep that and just go GF it will be easier. I think it's good that she is starting so young, this will become ingrained more easily. A friend of mine pointed out that she is right at that age where she can use the stove and is willing to learn, so she can start learning how to bake her own GF goodies and cook her own meals. I keep telling myself "it's not a problem. It's an opportunity". Now I have to go to Trader Joes and find some good GF breakfast cereals.

Thank you guys for your kind words. I just wish some of this stuff could be made real. At the Federal level, mind

Thank you Elizabeth. That means a lot, especially coming from you.

Elizabeth, I think the story about Linda's brother raises an interesting point. For many people, it may be a behaviour learned in childhood, from foolish and bigoted parents. You know how a mom can pass a fear of (say) dogs onto her child? Same basic principle, with maybe a bit of conditioning and reinforcement thrown in for good measure. I think it would depress me beyond reason to read that FBI list, but I probably should do it. OSM

LR, There was more to the story. I chose to leave it out and go with the drama. I was going to write the rest as a "Part 3". However, "Part 1" was one story, and "Part 2" was half of another. To continue part 2 wouldn't be "Part 3" but rather "part 2, part 2". Or maybe "Part 2½" It was all getting a bit confusing. Suffice to say, I eventually got a grip on myself and left that abusive relationship. Not soon enough. But I left, and that's what's important. I no longer see myself as a coward, but -as you said- a survivor. OSM

Thanks Wynda. Yes. Mammograms and bone density scans are annual events from now on. I have very insisty doctors on these matters. Not that I plan to argue. OSM

Candes, I'd be happy or you to take a crack at figuring out what ails me. Thirty-odd doctors have tried (failed) and I trust you more than most of them. OSM

Let's address all of these comments from you, shall we? (to be continued -typepad idiosyncrasies necessitate some finessing on the comments, sometimes) OK. Now I can use punctuation. Sorta. Your original comments are enclosed in these ** *I haven't read your full blog entry yet. but I'd like to let you know that that is not necessarily the case.* What exactly, isn't necessarily the case, Grace? I made more than one point in the entire piece. *Autism and Schizophrenia, while being different disorders, have similar genetic patterns and do tend to run in families, * I agree. The contentious point is if they run together or separately in those families. *although they seem to be the opposite problem.* That is a matter of opinion . See my piece on autistic myths. *This is common in genetics, and although it is paradoxical, it has been a well documented trend over the last 100 years of studying genetics.* Autism hasn't been around as a diagnosis for 100 years, so I call bullshit on that statement. *She was not being derogatory. It is becoming more common in autistic literature that the Broad Autism Phenotype is coming about, but you can't actually publish anything unless it is 100% provable.* I didn't say she was being derogatory. I said she is probably WRONG. *Therefore, you need to read inbetween the lines to understand what the author is saying. Its a different use of logic then the one you're used to.* ohhh. The Sooper Seekrit Hidden Meaning Defence, with a side of "you're stupid" thrown in for good measure. But you're not flaming me, right? *If you actually understood the article, the definition of autism they were using was simply after 1987, because the subjects looked at had to be at least 10 at age diagnosis if using an old diagnosis (1987), or 5 if using the new diagnosis (2008). Autism spectrum disorders, specifically aspergers, run in my family.* You've lost me on these points, and then you tried to correct and lost me again, but I think they are irrelevant, because the points I was making about misdiagnosis was not about the 1977-2003 generation. It was about the previous generations. The parents; most of whom were evaluated before Autism was heard of. *I understand how offensive researchers can sound, but researchers have their heads in the clouds because they are thinking so deeply about the subject they work on. They dedicate their entire life to one subject, and I really respect that. If you need to be angry at something, don't pick on the researchers.* I'm not choosing researchers on which to vent my "anger" Shoddy work makes me angry. Being WRONG and publishing resulting dross makes me angry. *Pick on society or something more relevant to the problem.* What? Society causes Autism now? It's not genetic with an environmental insult? Please publish something on this, quick, so I can rip it to shreds *There is nothing wrong with being autistic or having aspergers.* I never said there was. Both my kids are on the Spectrum, remember? And they are perfect. *The DSM IV is outdated, and their definitions are being revised currently.* I used the ICD in most of the piece, because that's what's in use in Sweden. But I agree that it's outdated. But if you are trying to say the ICD or DSM is wrong, then you are saying the entire study shoudl be thrown out, because it has no basis in anything. *If you read more than one article, then you'll see that.* Yes that's rigfht. I have only ever read one article in my entire life. *The DSM IV was written at a time when the Autism Spectrum wasn't very well understood, and it doesn't account for coping mechanisms. In the research community, it is well understood that the DSM IV is only accurate for severe cases.* I didn't see any disclaimers in the Daniels' study. *Before you go on a rant, please immerse yourself in the literature so you actually understand the language, and therefore what they are saying. You're using the wrong definitions.* So now I'm stupid, uninformed and linguistically impaired. But you're not flaming me, right? And I'll rant all I want! (although I didn't rant very much here at all -for me) This IS my blog. Hello? SECOND COMMENT *I read your full entry as soon as I got home, and I wasn't flaming you, I had class to get to. If you take the time to read my full comment, you'll see that.* See what? That you had a class to get to? (no, don't see it). Or that you weren't flaming me? (Don't see that, either) *If not, oh well. I wanted to have a serious discussion about the subject,* No, you didn't. You wanted to tell me how wrong and stupid I was. Had you wanted a discussion, you would have asked at least ONE question or asked for a clarification, maybe. Or maybe included a friendly overture. You didn't. *because like you, Autism runs in my family.And I explained what you saw as flaws in her research,* No, you didn't. You 'splained that poor Dr daniels must have her head in the clouds and I was reading the study all wrong because ethics constraints meant that the Real Meaning of the study was -not in the content- but between the lines. *because this is a field I am looking to be scientifically involved in. I'm not going to re invent the wheel here,* Actually, I think you just did. Tell me more about this between-the-line-reading of study presentation. *but if you want to understand from the perspective of the researcher and their implications of the above mentioned article, read my post.* I did. It didn't help her case (or yours) at all. Sorry. *Also there is one flaw in my first comment, being that the age at diagnosis had to be the age of 10. In addition, in order to participate in this kind of study there are consent forms, so the parents were aware that they were being involved in an analysis. If they did not agree with the diagnosis, they were probably not included.* So there were 32,237 consent forms signed for this study? Impressive. Prove it. "Grace": Again, you have completely missed my core point: That the Schizophrenia diagnosis of the PARENTS was probably incorrect. Not that the Autism/AS/PDD diagnoses may be incorrect. You'll be a fabulous researcher because you seem incapable of grasping the macro as opposed to the micro picture. God help us all.

I find comments along the lines of "I didn't bother to read all of what you had to say, but this is where you're wrong" to be rude, unproductive and unworthy of my time. I will read your original comment and respond in detail later. In the meantime, if you wish to add or change anything; -having actually read the full piece, feel free to do so. OSM

Grace, I didnt read your full comment because you didnt read my full piece. However I am not going to waste either of our time commenting on your comment that I didnt read, because I may make points that you already made that *I* had already made and it would all get a bit redundant. OSM

Frank, Thanks for the positive feedback. I hope to get back into blogging soon.

Dear picky eaters. I will continue to share my stuffs, but you dont get to post irrelevant spammy links here without permission. I dont do that shit to you. Kindly show me the same respect. OSM

Juli, Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, too many doctors seem to look at arbitary criteria, and look at guidlines as immobile, rather than evaluate the whole child. I have another piece on this, if you are interested. http://onesickmother.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/rules-damn-rules-and-statistics.html Good luck finding answers for your son. I think this 'knowing something is wrong but not finding the right professional' is one of the most difficult stages to go through. OSM

David, Thank you for the kind words. OSM

Hi Benni, I dont know if the product actually contains the listed products or something completely different. There has never been an analysis done that I am aware. Either way, I would never advise anyone to take it. If it does contain the listed ingredients it is -as you say- highly toxic. If it DOESNT contain the listed ingredients, It could well contain other poisons. You may want to get to a doctor and have your mercury levels checked, if possible. OSM

Lynette, You seem to be confusing me with the scammers. This site is not affiliated or associated in ANY way with the products that we expose as frauds. My best advice to you is to cancel your order and save your money because chances are the product you want to order wont help you and will probably harm you OSM

Bob, You seem to be confusing me with the scammers. This site is not affiliated or associated in ANY way with the products that we expose as frauds. My best advice to you is to cancel your order and save your money because chances are the product you orderd wont help you and will probably harm you OSM

Oh and that 80% figure? totally false and unsubstantiated. They *can't* have run any tests "in-house" because they don't HAVE a house! They have no physical presence in NZ at all -just a mail forwarding service that sends their mail right back out of the country. to -if the NZ govt is to be believed- one guy running a scam out of his house in Pakistan. It's all lies, lies, lies. Very huge ones, but lies all the same. OSM

Victoria, I am replying in the public forum because I don't do personalized replies, especially when people insult me with a jibe about "no ads". Please read my site before you make unfair assumptions about me. "Gordon's herbal Research Center" in general and "Greneton" in particular are scams because: 1. Exactly the same "interesting" story that is used to sell this product is used for 64 products. 2. Ditto exactly the same testimonials from exactly the same people 3. Exactly the same ingredients in exactly the same quantities are touted as a cure (by the same company)for conditions including (but not limited to): Erectile Dysfunction, Depression, Alcoholism, Lou Grehig's Disease, Hydrocele, Farting, and rapid aging. Honestly, if one formula fixed all that, don't you think it would be on the cover of Newsweek? Also -if all this hasn't convinced you: "Gordon's" is supposed to be based in New Zealand, but the New Zealand Government has issued a warning against them. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/22459AF3D41CA288CC257676007E651F The NZ Government says (extract) : “Our investigations indicate that all 65 websites are operated from overseas and are a money-making scam,” They also say that claims Gordon's make implying that the treatments were approved by the NZ health Authority and the FDA are not true. So if you want to avoid harming your friend any further, stay well away from Gordon's Habitual Scamming Center. OSM