I was thinking a bit differently

We already have terms like High-Functioning and Moderately Autistic, albeit they aren't used consistently. What I mean is that a child who is vaccine-injured shouldn't be called autistic, it should be said the child has autistic-like symptoms from vaccine injury.

Say a child had a limp. You would treat the child very differently if the child's limp was caused by a sprained ankle than if it were caused by bone cancer, right? We call it different things, even though they may produce the same primary symptoms on the outside, because the symptoms have different roots.

If autism is 1:250 (it's probably more), then that's 40:10,000. The old autism figures that stood for decades said autism was 2:10,000. OK, the definition is broader, so let's say under the new definition, autism pre-MMR would have been 10:10,000 (and I think that's high). Then 3 in 4 autism cases today aren't "yesterday's autism," they are a new syndrome that has autistic symptoms. By calling them autism, they get lumped into the pre-MMR "autism is incurable, there from birth, etc" way of thinking. You get "experts" quoting research from the 70s and applying it to today's kids, whose symptoms are coming from a different place.

There is no one cure for autism and there will never be. It's because saying there is a cure for autism is like saying there is a cure for a limp. You don't cure a symptom. You treat a symptom, but you cure a disease, a disorder, an injury. To cure autism, you need to break it into categories - purely genetic (that is, life itself is the trigger), metal metabolism problem as trigger, etc. Then you work to cure or fix each area. Autism as a group is good for political power (funding, etc) but leaves the medical community spinning its wheels.