This is the way the experts present autism to the public:

"It is a specific condition.  We know that.  It has a specific cause.  We know that, too.  We haven't discovered the cause yet, but we're making progress.  Vaccines have nothing to do with autism.  Most likely, the disease is genetic..."

First of all, on what basis do the experts claim they know autism is a specific condition?  What do they mean by "specific?"

We can find the answer to these questions by understanding how autism is defined.  And how do we do that?

There is only one way.  We read the official medical definition of autism.

I will now ask you to make an effort and read the complete medical definition.  Please.  Plow your way through it, and as you do, ask yourself whether it strikes you as "specific."  Ask yourself if the words add up to a well-formed tight description---or do they seem to suggest a committee of psychiatrists sitting around juggling a list of behaviors and arbitrarily clustering them under the label, AUTISM:

[The following definition of autism is from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV (1994)]

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C):

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction

2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)

4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or "mechanical" aids )

(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)

2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others

3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language

4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals

3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)

4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction

(B) language as used in social communication

(C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.

Well, that's it.  That's all of it. That's the official definition of autism.

It couldn't be less specific.

Also, notice that no single cause is listed.  They don't have one.  They will claim it's genetic, but they offer no proof.  If they had solid proof, they would have listed a cause in the definition.  They don't.

The definition of autism is a complete mess.  It's a hoax.

To be sure, there are MANY children who are severely damaged.  No one is denying that.  But why call it autism, if this pretense of a definition is all they have?

For example, for the children who are neurologically damaged by vaccines, call it what it is: VACCINE DAMAGE.  That's clear.  It points directly to a cause.  And we know that vaccines contain highly toxic metals. Aluminum, for example.  Mercury, another poison, hasn't been totally eliminated from some vaccines.  There are other chemicals in vaccines, such as formaldehyde, which are toxic.  

Obviously, using the label, autism, covers up the fact that vaccines have been doing great damage to children.  Using the term autism obscures the fact that vaccine manufacturers are criminally liable, and potentially on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in law suits.

If a child has been damaged by exposure to, say, pesticides, call that what it is: PESTICIDE DAMAGE.  Don't try to hide the fact under the autism label.

Notice that in these two cases, vaccine and pesticide damage, we're not talking about a disease at all.  The word disease becomes another cover story to conceal real causes and real perpetrators.

If a child was struck on the head with a heavy object and sustained serious damage, and the doctor told his mother the child had suddenly contracted a disease called X, the insane absurdity of the "diagnosis" would be obvious to one and all.  Well, that's the situation here, with autism.

Don't try to use a term (autism) to cover up the fact that the cause of the damage was clear in MANY instances.  It was a "heavy object" called a vaccine, or a pesticide, or some other direct destructive force.

If anything is criminal, THIS is criminal.  At the highest level.