Monday, August 5, 2019

Manuel Casanova's new book

I'm pleased to announce that neuroscientist and autism researcher Manuel Casanova has a new book out. Dr. C is a neuroscientist who has done research on post-mortem brains, showing that autistics have abnormalities in structures called minicolumns, where there are too many of them and the cells are more narrow.  Also, according to his research, there is a protective membrane around the minicolumns which p;rovide a sort of shower curtain effect.  The neurons in this membrane use GABA as a neurotransmitter, which is an inhibitory neurotransmitter and could be the reason autistics engage in self-stimulatory behaviors.

He's also done research on Transcranial magnetic stimulation as a possible treatment for autism.

Unlike most scientists, manuel has a blog called Cortical Chauvinism where he in part explains his research in terms the lay person (such as myself) can understand.

In addition, Manuel criticizes the neurodiversity movement as well as journalist Steve Silberman.

Manuel now has a personal stake in developmental disabilities, as his grandson suffers from a severe genetic disorder resulting in serious neurologic dysfunction.

He's included these posts on cortical chauvinism in book form which is now available from amazon at the above link.

I attempted to publish a 5 star review of the book on Amazon, but for some reason, my review has not been posted yet.

I highly recommend this book and hope others will purchase it.  (I purchased a copy, yeah)

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Yuval Levental's piece on neurodiversity published in scientific american

For the past few years or so, the neurodiversity movement has dominated the mainstream media in getting their ideas across with minimal exposure for opposing viewpoints.  I've managed to get  in a couple of shots.  Newsweek ran a profile about me.  However the headline "The Hater's Guide to Self-hating" appeared in their print issue.  The conservative Spectator Magazine in the UK also published a piece I wrote criticizing ND.

Recently,  the magazine Scientific American published a  pro-neurodiversity piece by disabilities rights advocate Aiyana Bailin.  She claimed there were misconceptions about neurodiversity.

Thomas Clements, one of the people from our side, questioned on twitter whether or not Scientific American could publish a rebuttal piece.

I decided to approach Scientific American to ask them about publishing a piece that I would write, giving the other side of the neurodiversity story.  They wrote me back stating they usually just published things by credentialed scientists, but I could submit something to their opinions editor and gave me the email contact.  This discouraged me, as I thought the power of ND was allowing Bailin, not a credentialed scientist to do something unprecedented.  I decided to take a pass on writing and submitting the op ed piece. 

I told Yuval Levental, another person from our side, about this on twitter.  He said he'd like to write the piece I declined to write and I gave him the contact info of the people he could reach at Sci American.

I'm happy to report They published Yuval's piece. This is another rare victory for our side and I hope we can continue gaining some success in our uphill battle against the ND movement. An old cliche, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a few steps.

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Yuval Levental's pursuit of knowledge

Early in my blogging and postings on usenet newsgroups in the earlier days of the internet, I was a figurative diamond in the rough- one of the few persons with an ASD to take on the ND movement.   Occasionally people would email me or write posts on my website's guest book that they were also autistic and had contempt for the neurodiversity movement and they were glad to see me writing about those issues.  However, none of these people wanted to join the fray and publicly criticize ND.

Also, about 15 years ago, I wrote an article questioning the autism dx of Bill Gates, Albert, Einstein and Thomas Jefferson promoted by the neurodiversity movement.  I got a fair amount of emails and comments, both pro and con about this article.

In recent years I've been gratified that more and more individuals with autism are now coming out and publicly criticizing neurodiversity.  One of these people is someone named Yuval Levental.

Some years ago, Yuval sent me an email stating that he'd read my piece about Gates and the others and because of my piece he was inspired to seek help for his autism.

Yuval is one of the few good people who have come out and criticized the neurodiversity movement debunking the mythology espoused by the ND's that all or most autistics don't want to be cured and are adherents to the neurodiversity party line.

Yuval has also been a devoted fan of mine, who worked to promote my novel, "the mu rhythm bluff".

He is someone who has expertise in the ins and outs of Wikipedia and has written multiple Wikipedia articles about me as well as others on our side.  He's also contributed to other Wiki articles about NDs and other related matters, helping us get out our side of the story.  When the ND thugs tried to get my page removed from Wikipedia and vandalized my page in retaliation for my unfavorable article in Spectator magazine, he worked tirelessly to stop it.

Saying that Yuval has been a most useful ally to our uphill cause is putting it mildly.

That's why I'm pleased to announced that Yuval  has recently published a book which serves as a collection of his writings on the subjects of neurodiversity and his pursuit of various treatments which he hoped would mitigate his autism. The title of the book is The Pursuit of Knowledge: My Unconventional Writings on Autism and Neurodiversity. 

Most of these writings are already available on Manuel Casanova's blog cortical chauvinism and elsewhere.  A few of them are novel.

Yuval has tried various treatments to help himself including plastic surgery, vitamin D and probiotics in the hopes that it would help his autism and other people's.  Though I'm skeptical how much these will help, I admire him for trying to experiment in ways to better himself.

Yuval sent me an advanced copy of his book which I've already read.

As of this writing, the book is only available in paperback and not in Kindle.  But Yuval tells me that he's going to release a kindle edition at the end of the week.

I plan to purchase the book when it comes out in kindle.  I hope other people will purchase this book which provides an interesting story on how Yuval pursued knowledge in neurodiversity, autism and on ways to help treat his problems.  

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

The Concept of Cure and prevention divides the autism community: It should not have to.

Neurodiversity has completely taken over all facets of the autism discourse.  Autism speaks reversed itself saying they will no longer look for a cure or prevention of autism.  They appointed two neurodiversity proponents alleging to have autism to their board of directors.  One has said that autism is a superpower.  The other has said that autism is not a disability, but a strength.  The Simons Foundation's newsletter, Spectrum routinely publishes articles from some of the most hardcore neurodiversity proponents such as Julia Bascom, Shannon Rosa and Sara Luterman.  The U.S. Government no longer will combat autism and has appointed seven neurodiversity proponents as public members, six of them identifying as being on the autism spectrum.  As far as I know, they've appointed one anti-vaxxer, one or two parents who support the concept of prevention and cure and zero pro-cure, pro-treatment autistics, though two applied to be on the IACC and were turned down.  They also have multibillionaire George Soros on their side who has given over $300,000 to the autistic self advocacy network, the premiere neurodiversity organization in the United States.

Last, but as far as this post goes, not least, they have completely taken over the International Society of Autism Research.  Their president is Simon Baron-Cohen, a neurodiversity proponent.  On their board of directors is well-known neurodiversity proponent John Elder Robison who has recently called for an adult prevalence study and should be in the Guiness Book of World Records for writing a journal article with the most factual errors of all time.  Autism Research, INSAR's journal, published his article.

However, this is not enough for them.  In a redux of SB's BS, Simon Baron Cohen has published an article attempting to make a case for why neurodiversity is a legitimate philosophy and should not be controversial He gives a rehash of all of his old and ignorant talking points.

In trying to say that the autistic brain is a variation of normal, he again neglects to cite the findings of gliosis in Bailey's postmortem studies.   This is a response of glial cells to damage of neuronal cells, clearly a pathology and not just a different form of brain wiring.  He neglects to cite the work of Wegiel which finds heterotopias in four autistic brains and none of the controls.  This is where germinal cells fail to migrate to their proper spots during fetal development, causing seizures and other brain abnormalities.  It is no less of a normal variation than an ectopic pregnancy or inguinal hernia.

He goes on to talk about the superiority of autistics on the block design subtest of the Wechsler as showing autism to be a variation of normal, but neglects to mention the subpar scores on the comprehension subtest which results in autistics having severe social judgment impairments and getting into trouble in social situations.

In his statements about genetic variations, he neglects to discuss the research showing autism in a number of cases is the result of de novo mutations, such as the research of Jonathan Sebat demonstrates.  He neglects to discuss the evidence for environmental factors in autism such as the California twin studies and the work of Tanai in Japan showing much larger concordance in fraternal twins than in non twin siblings, even though they have the same genetic makeup. Not to mention thalidomide and various types of birth complications which have been found in association with autism.

However, these are old talking points of SB's BS and I've commented on them before

What's new is that he says the concept of neurodiversity should not be controversial, but apparently the concepts of curing autism and prevention should be.  This man who attempts to be the voice of reason  has stated  anyone who wants to cure and prevent autism is no different than a nazi or a member of the Ku Klux Klan,  Ergo, cure and prevention are controversial positions and neurodiversity is a benign thought that should have no controversy whatsoever.

He has admitted there are autistic people who can't speak and have other serious impairments.  Yet, the neurodiversity movement he emboldens has constantly insulted parents who want cures for their children or to prevent other children from going through the hell they have gone through.

Why should wanting to cure self-injurious behavior, seizures, etc. be controversial?

Even a cure for more mild problems such as the one's I've had with holding down jobs, fine motor problems, celibacy, etc is controversial?  Why should this be so?

Perhaps it's time to rethink what should be controversial and what shouldn't be in the field of autism.

Friday, April 19, 2019

a pet peeve of mine

There's a pet peeve of mine that I think of from time to time, but an urge to vent about this has come to me.  I tweeted a few tweets about it on twitter, but the character limitation and format of twitter really limit my writing about this. Facebook is another option.  But I'm pretty pissed off at FB for deleting a couple of my posts and banning my blog, so not sure I'm ever going to post anything on there again.

For this reason, I've decided to write a blog post on the subject, though I've not been blogging as much in recent years as in the past.

I'm fed up with people giving me easy/pat suggestions for what I can do to help my disability.

The first two that I've heard the most frequently I've written about previously. For those who aren't inclined to read the whole post, I'll recap.

 1. Because you get fired, tell employers about your disability. I tried it once, didn't help, I got fired anyhow.  I'm retired now, highly improbable I'll ever work again, so perhaps it's moot now, but the annoyance of having to hear this repeatedly has not gone away.

2. Because you can't find a girlfriend, find an autistic girlfriend.  No place to find one and I sure don't want a female ND. and contrary to ND mythology, there is about a 4:1 ratio of male autistics to females.  So if the girls were interested the odds would be good for them, but they're not because the goods are odd. 

In the above-linked post, I wrote that I think autism may have given me the savant skill of prophecy because I can so easily predict what people will say in response to these issues.

There are others I've heard, but not with the same frequency.

3. Try therapy.  Had 18 years of it.  Been there, done that.

4. get social skills training to enable you to find a girlfriend.  Problem is more complex than that, too difficult to explain in this blog post.

5. Go to church.  One person has told me an autistic boy whose parents have taken him to her church is doing a lot better now.  No thanks, I went to church with some people one time, took communion and it would appear I drank to my own damnation. 

6. Take SSRI drugs.  I did.  Two different ones, Prozac and Lexipro, no help there. 

7. Take Elavil to relieve depression.  This was in the mid 80s before SSRI's became available.  I'm depressed because autism has made my life so difficult, not because I have an affective disorder.

8. Go to an autistic social club to meet autistic women (I guess because I have little chance with a normal woman or I'm ill-suited for her).  Meetup shows where groups like this are.  This is a subset of item number two in the two most common suggestions I've heard.  But this means I'd have to go to the Los Angeles chapters of GRASP or ASAN and meet female ND's.  No thanks.

9. How do I expect autistic (ND) girls to like me if I'm going to have these attitudes.  I don't expect ND women to like me and if they don't it's fine with me.

10.  If I weren't such a jerk and did not talk about disgusting things like autistics who smear feces, women would not hate me so much. (this was at least by far the most amusing of the lot)

11. Get a typing tutor program so you can learn how not to make careless errors in data entry.

There are probably a few others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.  I also think anyone reading this would get the idea by now.

I've lived with this disability for more than 60 years now.  I know what the situation is better than the person looking in, believe me.  I really resent people who know nothing about my life giving me pat advice.  There's really not a whole lot I can do about these problems.  Nothing's going to change the hopelessness of my situation and likely other DD persons who have to live with their disability.

But I know that this won't be the last I ever hear suggestions.  I'm sure I'll continue to hear the same tired old ones.  Especially the first two.  I'll likely hear a few new ones down the line also.  Just something I guess I'm going to have to learn to live with.

Thanks blog readers for allowing me to vent.

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Problems with Adult autism and Prevalence: John Elder Robison to the rescue

Within the autism community, there's a heated debate on whether or not the prevalence of autism has remained stable since Kanner first wrote about the condition in the early 1940s.  A few prevalence studies published between 1966 and 1985 estimated the prevalence at about 1 in 2,500.  Many years later, other studies have estimated a prevalence rate of autism at 1 in 100 or higher.  The latest CDC numbers are 1 in 59.   Some persons believe that the main reason for the increase is greater identification of individuals and change in diagnostic criteria.  Others believe there is some sort of environmental toxin or toxins, driving a dramatic increase in numbers in a short time frame.  There is no consensus on whether or not there are far less autistics born in 1970 and earlier than those born in 1990 and later. 

Autism is usually considered a disorder of childhood.  However, autistics are not Peter Pans who remain children forever.  Those of us with autism grow up into adults.  Assuming there's been a genuine increase in numbers, the huge increase started with people born in 1990 and later.  Many of these individuals are now adults.  Children age out of services provided by the IDEA when they turn 21.  Some state regional centers provide group home funding once the more severe individuals reach adulthood.  There have been published reports of autistics having severe health issues as opposed to the general population as well as much higher rates of suicide.  How can we identify these adults, find out what their issues are and help them?

When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, she proposed doing an adult prevalence study on autism.  

IACC public member John Elder Robison has written a take on this topic.

In short, JER has addressed the problems of health issues and suicide, etc. in autistic adults.  He proposes to spend millions of dollars in taxpayer money doing an adult prevalence study to identify this population and find out what their issues are.

He proposes to combine methodologies of two prominent studies to find the prevalence of autism in adults. First are the reports delivered every two years by the autism and developmental disabilities network monitoring which assesses prevalence in autistic children every two years who are 8 years old at the time the survey is carried out.   The second is a survey carried out by T. Brugha, et. al. that assessed the prevalence of autistic adults (16 years and older) in the UK.  They found a nearly 1% prevalence, which was about the same as had been reported in autistic children at the time.  You can read the survey in its entirety here.

How valid were these two surveys in assessing the prevalence of autism in children and adults respectively?  Will Robison's recommendations help us find a valid adult prevalence?  Do his talking points have any credibility?  I will attempt to answer these questions in this blog post.

On careful scrutiny of Robison's talking points, it seems he's made many factually inaccurate statements.  He appears to have not even read the primary sources of the articles he cites.

Robison states:

Brugha et al. [2011] found very high rates of autism among older adults previously diagnosed with learning disabilities, and they found alarge number of autistic people living in group or institu-tional settings. Neither of thosefindings are surprising.

Actually Brugha et. al found 19 cases out of 7,461 persons surveyed in the first phase of his study in a country of 30 million population.  Based on a statistical analysis, which at best was educated guesswork on his part, he surmised that there were an additional 55 cases on top of the 19 that were assessed using the ADOS to diagnosis their autism that were in the survey.  Most of these had intact intelligence though there were some who responded to the survey by proxy due to being too disabled.  These persons did not live in institutional settings but in regular households.  I realize though JER's standard for "very high" might be different than mine.   

According to Brugha et al. [2011], with our current bestestimates of prevalence, roughly one in 50 men, or onein 75 people of all ages are on the autism spectrum. Thisis consistent with contemporaneous prevalence estimatesfor children, such as the 1 in 56 reported by the CDCsADDM (Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitor-ing Network)

Actually Brugha found not one in 75, but 98 out of 1000 or slightly less than 1 in 100.  The CDC's 2018 report found  26.6  in 1000 boys or one in 38, rounded to the nearest non-decimal number. /The CDC's number in 2018 was actually 1 in 59 not 1 in 56.  These might be considered minor factual errors, but I feel as an autism public policy advisor at taxpayer expense, Robison should get these figures right. 

He uses the study by Lisa Croen to state that there were only less than one tenth of the adults there should be in that survey.  I don't believe a sample of the general population and a selected sample of people in the Kaiser insurance program is an apples to apples comparison, as there would be selection bias as to who would have this insurance or wouldn't.  Adults outside the Kaiser system might have MediCal  and seek health at other providers or not have insurance of any kind.  Another possibility is that there is not a 1% prevalence or higher in this age group as has been found in children.    

 Robison states: 

 With some autisticadults described as tech geniuses while others require24/7 support for basic living, parents rightly wonder whatthe future holds for their autistic children. We owe it tothem tofind some answer

How can an adult prevalence study predict what the future holds for autistic children?  How will spending taxpayer money in this manner do this? You don't need a multimillion dollar taxpayer financed study to know that the prognosis for most autistic children is very poor.

In conversation with autistic people, I have often beentold that adults deliberately keep their autism diagnosisout of the medical record, to avoidhaving it usedagainst them.Perceived threats include higher lifeinsurance premiums, higher health insurance premiums,and possible denial of professional licenses or even jobs.Those are all valid concerns and suggest there may be agood number of autistic adults who are aware of theircondition but choose tofly under the radar.

John may not be aware of this, but under the health insurance privacy protection act, it's a federal offense for a hospital or doctor to share medical records without someone's consent.  Very few autistic people have children so life insurance would not be a concern.  Because of lobbying from autism speaks, insurance now pays for many autism treatments, but it did not in the past, so it's unlikely an autism diagnosis would result in higher insurance premiums for a pre-existing condition.  This is even less of a concern since the affordable health care act was passed.  Very few autistic people will become eligible for any type of professional licensing.  A prospective employer is unlikely to ask someone for their medical records and again under HIPPA it's illegal for a hospital or insurance company to produce these without the person's consent.  

 
A few years ago, researchers believed most autistic peoplewere intellectually disabled. That belief was founded on alimited understandingthey only recognized a small part ofthe autism spectrum as we know it today. Now that our sam-ple is larger, we understand that the average IQ of the autisticpopulation is much closer to that of the general population

Actually only 1% of the population has an intellectual disability, whereas probably at least one in three autistic persons has one.  It is probably closer to 40%.  This includes findings from the ADDM surveys that Robison takes such high stock in.  

In addition to the 1% prevalence of adults in the Brugha study just being a guess, this survey has other problems.  It turns out the AQ-20, an abridged version of Simon Baron Cohen's AQ test, was a very poor predictor of who is and who isn't autistic.  The blogger autism jabberwocky wrote about this so it would appear the Brugha survey, admitted by the author himself, has no credibility whatsoever.  

The authors divided their prevalence data into three age groups, stating there was no difference in prevalence between the groups.  But with a sample of only 19 people it does not really have the statistical power to say this.  

It appears John Robison just read portions of the abstract of the study without reading Brugha's work in its entirety.  

John Also wants to use the ADDM reports as a model for his plan to assess adult prevalence.  These reports, published every two years cost the American taxpayers 5 million dollars a year.  The reports only cover a cross section of the entire USA.  They use states such as New Jersey each year, which as a more generous service delivery, providing an incentive for the parents of children to get an autism dx.  This state only has a fraction of the population of the entire USA and thus skews the average.  Just a small percentage of the united states instead of the entire country is used to assess these prevalence numbers.  Also, a significant percentage, maybe as much as 20% in some years of the autism cases are not actually diagnosed.  Rather the epidemiologists who are not trained clinicians and have never even seen the actual 8 year old children rely on health and school records to come to the determination that these children are autistic and provide them as part of the prevalence numbers.  

To me it is worrisome that JER can get articles such as these that pass peer review in journals of questionable quality.  It troubles me that he can carry out his activities at taxpayer expense. 

Another point to ponder is whether or not JER's motivation in making this proposal is to actually produce data that will be of use to service providers and others to help autistic adults.  Hillary Clinton's proposal of an adult prevalence study came after a conference call with ASAN.  The neurodiversity movement has insisted that autism is a natural variation and 100% genetic.  This is despite evidence of studies of fraternal twins showing higher rates of concordance than non twin siblings as well as environmental insults such as thalidomide showing to cause autism.  These argue against an exclusively 100% genetic component.  If a neurodiversity sponsored study found an adult prevalence rate identical to those of children born in 2000 or later, this would certainly bolster their hypothesis.  John has an intimate friendship with Alex Plank and other ND extremists.  If you go on his twitter and look at his tweets and replies, you can see some of the most radical ND proponents who block those who disagree with him are having dialogues with him.  Could this be at least a factor in his desire for an adult prevalence study?     

My own take on an adult prevalence study is that it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.  Adults don't present to special ed schools, clinics etc.  So it's impossible to do the aggressive case finding that the CDC does to find people over the age of 21 who are on the spectrum.  I believe the question on whether or not there are just as many autistics born in 1970 or earlier as opposed to 1990 or later will never be resolved.  I don't believe a valid prevalence study is possible to do on this group.  There is no point in spending American tax dollars on this endeavor that the British did on the Brugha surveys and study. 

Are JER's proposals to spend millions more on taxpayer dollars, based on a model of two different troubling epidemiologic studies worth it?  Is this a person who should be making policy recommendations for autism at taxpayer expense?  Autism's Gadfly does not think so. 
 

Sunday, March 24, 2019

The neurodiversity movement gets my blog banned from Facebook

The neurodiversity movement has used their filthy tentacles to ensnare many different things.  These include the Federal  government of the United States, Autism Speaks, the Simon Foundations' Spectrum Magazine and now Facebook.

Regular readers of my blog remember that I've written about Facebook on two different occasions deleting some pro-cure (of autism) posts at the behest of the neurodiversity movement.  I wrote about this previously In response to this, I deactivated my Facebook account, not sure when I'd return.  Five days after I deactivated my account, out of unconscious habit, I relogged back in and activated it and have remained on for a while, posting sparingly.

A few days ago, Facebook reached a low in banning my blog.  When I write a new blog post, I usually publicize it on both Facebook and Twitter.  When I tried to link my last blog post on my Facebook page I got a message saying it did not meet with their community standards.  These include hate speech, people advocating violence and putting pornography on facebook.  so now autism's gadfly falls into this nefarious category.  As a test, I attempted to post the URL www.autismgadfly.blogspot.com in a facebook post without linking to any specific post.  Again, I got this message.  In response to this, I've once again deactivated my facebook account.  I may return at some point, but I guess I'm going to have to try to not to log onto facebook, at least for a while.  I might reactivate the account at some point and then see about not using it once it's active, but still don't know what I will do.

One person asked me about the details and if there was any way I could inquire as to why facebook did this.  The answer is that the only recourse Facebook offers is that you can ask for a review of the post they allege violates their community standards.  I did this, but now that my account is not active at the current time I'm not sure what their response will be if any.  As far as directly contacting Facebook to ask for an explanation, this is not really possible.  Facebook does not really give information where you can specifically contact them.  With more than a billion users, they don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer queries about problems people have with their platform, particularly the arbitrary censorship that recently happened to me.

I'm trying to ponder the answer to the question why now.  My last two posts may have been controversial, but nothing out of the ordinary for autism's gadfly.  In response to Amy Schumer's husband allegedly having an ASD, I wrote a post suggesting that some people alleging to be autistic may have factitious syndrome.  However, I don't think this post was up long enough for anyone to take notice and immediately complain FB and have them ban my blog.  The post before that dealt with Julia Bascom's effort to have as many women diagnosed with autism as possible, stating the old neurodiversity trope that autism is underestimated in women and that the just as many women are autistic as men, despite the reported 3:1 to 4:1 gender imbalance reported in the literature.  Not sure if either of these two posts were the tipping point for neurodiversity activists or not.

In recent months, my profile increased just a little bit when I had an unfavorable article about the ND
movement published in spectator magazine.  In response to this someone filed a bogus complaint with twitter, claiming my posts violated their terms of service.  Twitter emailed me about this saying there was no basis for this claim.  Next, people repeatedly vandalized and defaced my Wikipedia page.  Because of this Yuval, who maintains my page, inquired with Wikipedia for giving my page their highest level of protection possible which they did.  Maybe I should flattered by this newest development in that I may be finally making an impact and the ND movement certainly does not want the truth about how viciously evil they are to become well known.

It seems this censorship has started to reach a new plateau with various autism books that propose bogus treatments for autism being banned from amazon.  The anti-vax documentary callous disregard has also been taken off amazon.  Various posts from the anti-vaxers have been deleted from various social media sites.

Though I don't believe the FDA should allow chelatiuon and other questionable treatments, and I don't believe vaccines cause autism for the most part,  this censorship and its slippery slope does concern me.

On Twitter, I pondered how soon would this happen to me.  Would Amazon purge my novel, the mu rhythm bluff from its site.  Would Google delete this blog, as one ND proponent vowed he said he'd be able to accomplish.  John Robison, asked me if I had any reason to believe that Amazon and/or Google had considered such action.  I replied, seriously no, but with all the power he and other NDs had acquired, I did not know what the future bode for me.

Shortly afterwards, Facebook banned my blog.

So far, I have only had problems with Facebook and not with any other site or platform, but that could easily change, and as I said, I don't know what the future bodes for me and my crusade against this insidious movement that causes so much harm to autistics and their families and does no good.  

On Twitter, I wondered what would happen if such censorship were directed at the neurodiversity movement.  One of my followers gave a concise and what is probably the definitive answer:  World War Three. 

ADDENDUM: I reactivated my FB account and posted URL to my blog as a test, it seems the ban's
been lifted.  But I'm still really pissed this happened and may deactivate the account again.