I have just seen that New Jersey is the 14th state in the union to pass mandatory insurance coverage for therapies for autistic persons up to the age of 21. This is an interesting video on that subject:
Very sad. One person paying three quarters of a million for therapy. One person remortgaging their house three times. One of the assembly speakers Joan Voss, whose son has Asperger's, makes the guarantee that with this bill parents will be able to purchase therapies that will allow all autistic children to be functioning adults as she alleges her son has. Bob Wright, who started autism speaks, also has a few things to say on the matter. At the end of the video the statement is made that these therapies will allow autistics to become functioning adults. Where is the proof? What person with autism became a "functioning adult" whatever that nebulous term means through any therapy? To quote the old 1980's television commercial, where's the beef? Adult autistics are ignored and are invisible. I have written about this in my essay The invisible autistic adult. At the time I wrote it some years ago, I was not aware that the children in Lovaas (1987) were adults-currently in their late 30s, early 40s. But I did ask about the adult outcomes. As I have written before, Lovaas and company have been paid at taxpayer expense to research and publish on these adult outcomes. To this day they still haven't. So one wonders if this insurance reform will really produce "functioning adults" Course that term could have a variety of semantic interpretations. Noah Greenfeld, one of Lovaas' first research subjects, may be a functioning adult, but his functioning is quite low and he will remain in institutional care the rest of his life. I think of the money my parents paid for my treatments. particularly the sensorimotor training I had which did nothing to improve my fine motor coordination, handwriting problems and perceptual motor impairments in spite of the usual claims of amelioration that were made to my folks.
I also wonder about the harm of these insurance reform bills. I currently have medical coverage on my parent's plan as a disabled dependent. I will lose that coverage when my parents who are in their 80s are deceased. Even if I inherit enough money or by some miracle I will be able to make a good living someday and purchase my own medical insurance, will I be allowed coverage after this law has been passed? After all this means that autism will be a pre-existing condition. Will parents with autistic child who don't have insurance be able to purchase it with their child's pre-existing condition. What if an autistic child needs a liver transplant or some other very expensive treatment? Also, this is not to mention how much health insurance rates and health costs, already prohibitively expensive for some with insurance rates rising will continue to rise. Does this mean others will have to pay more for their non-autism related treatments. I can only wonder.
In any event, I found this video interesting. Perhaps you will too. Enjoy.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Gadfly's take on new ABA+TMS study
I see that the NIMH hasfunded a new study on the use of transmagnetic stimulation in conjunction with ABA. TMS as it is called is the use of a tool that generates a magnetic field around a given brain area that will either knock it out or enhance it. It can be used to assess function in the area depending on what affects it has. It also has interest as a possible therapeutic tool for conditions such as depression and autism. I do not think I have to explain what ABA is to most of my readers. The grant from the NIMH is $900,000 given to researcher Manual Casanova. Casanova has done research on minicolumns which are groups of brain cells that are abnormally small in autism. The small minicolumns are believed to result in lack of inhibition of certain actions. Using TMS Casanova believes that he can artificially stimulate these inhibitory activities that the small minicolumns are not able to produce. Apparently some believe that this technique used in conjunction with ABA will produce some sort of results in autism.
One of the problems that I have with this is that Lovaas(the most celebrated of ABA practitioners and researchers) has already received quite a bit of money from the NIMH to study the adult outcomes of the participants of his subjects in his renowned 1987 study where he alleges a coin-flip probability of normal functioning in nearly half of the autistic children who as research subjects received 40 hours a week of ABA. I don't know how much money the NIMH awarded him to study these as yet still unpublished adult outcomes; however, this current study is running a tab of approximately $900,000. I don't feel that the taxpayers should foot the bill for more research into ABA therapy until we get the true story of what happened to those supposedly recovered autistic adults who are now in their late 30's, early 40's. Did they graduate college, did they become physicians, lawyers, dentists or engineers? Did they marry? Did their improved IQ scores remain stable? According to what little I have been able to gauge from my correspondence with Lovaas heir-apparent Tristram Smith, there were other psychologic tests administered to these subjects as adults as well.
Another problem is apparently only a pilot study has been done with TMS in which Casanova has gotten some results in a small group of autistic children. We still don't know what its effects are or lack of them is in autistic with just the TMS alone and no ABA other than these very preliminary findings. Of course, in a well-designed study we might be able to get an idea of which treatment affected what change.
Confounding variables were also dealt with in Lovaas(1987). What was found, however, is of chagrin to most behaviorists. Lovaas' work found that the active ingredient in ABA was the contingent use of aversives, such as hitting, slaps, water in the face and even in some cases electric shock. Without the aversives Lovaas (1987) would not have its marketing points and ABA never would have been able to achieve its current status as a cottage industry. This is in spite of the fact that the Hughes act outlawed aversives on developmentally disabled children in 1991. Therefore in jurisdictions such as my home state of California where aversives are a no-no, ABA is dishonestly marketed. Lovaas claimed in a rebuttal to his detractors written about 8 years ago or so that he had found new methods that made the use of aversives obsolete. If this is the case, to the best of my knowledge, he has never presented any evidence of this in a peer reviewed journal-the same fate that has become of his apparently NIMH funded aborted study of the adult outcomes of these children.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation may or may not be a state of the art treatment that will produce pie-in-the-sky rather than shit-from-the-sewer results in persons with autism. Interestingly enough, John Elder Robison, who wrote the bestseller Look Me in the Eye has gotten into the act This is in spite of the fact that on page 5 of his book he states that Asperger's is not a disease but a different way of being. He went on to state there was no cure and no need for one. Yet now he seems to feel the need to be a guinea pig in TMS research stating:
"I knew how much I had struggled as a young person - not knowing, being called 'retard' or 'freak.' This might help young people."
A possible complication from TMS is that it can induce seizure disorders. But supposedly, technology has improved and people have learned how to use this effectively enough to avoid giving someone a seizure.
Though this might be a good line of research at some point in time, one problem I have is that not enough is known about the etiology of the brain dysfunction responsible for ASD's. I suppose if Dr. Casanova were available to me he could explain the rationale to me based on what is known of the neurophysiology of autism aside from the work he has done on minicolumns. It may be that the autistic brain has various things wrong with it in various regions spread out diffusely within the brain. There may be an elaborate mirror neuron system with a variety of connections and it might be hard to find anything that is wrong. I guess Dr. Casanova being the recipient of the grant may have to show some evidence that this is a promising line of research and possible treatment of autism. Of course the same cannot be said of Dr. Lovaas and his cronies. If the work is replicated by a researcher besides Dr. Casanova perhaps studies could be made of TMS in lieu of ABA rather than as an adjunct with ABA. As regular gadfly readers (of which I know there are not very many)I am a cynic when it comes to anything in autism research or the new autism treatments that come up not infrequently as variable flavors of the month. This work may or may not yield some promise for autistic people, but it may not generate anything other than a bitter harvest for years or decades to come. Also work in neurofeedback such as what Jaime Pineda and Lindsay Oberman and their ilk are doing may also be promising avenues. This work may generate figurative diamonds in the rough at some point in time. Much work needs to be done though.
One of the problems that I have with this is that Lovaas(the most celebrated of ABA practitioners and researchers) has already received quite a bit of money from the NIMH to study the adult outcomes of the participants of his subjects in his renowned 1987 study where he alleges a coin-flip probability of normal functioning in nearly half of the autistic children who as research subjects received 40 hours a week of ABA. I don't know how much money the NIMH awarded him to study these as yet still unpublished adult outcomes; however, this current study is running a tab of approximately $900,000. I don't feel that the taxpayers should foot the bill for more research into ABA therapy until we get the true story of what happened to those supposedly recovered autistic adults who are now in their late 30's, early 40's. Did they graduate college, did they become physicians, lawyers, dentists or engineers? Did they marry? Did their improved IQ scores remain stable? According to what little I have been able to gauge from my correspondence with Lovaas heir-apparent Tristram Smith, there were other psychologic tests administered to these subjects as adults as well.
Another problem is apparently only a pilot study has been done with TMS in which Casanova has gotten some results in a small group of autistic children. We still don't know what its effects are or lack of them is in autistic with just the TMS alone and no ABA other than these very preliminary findings. Of course, in a well-designed study we might be able to get an idea of which treatment affected what change.
Confounding variables were also dealt with in Lovaas(1987). What was found, however, is of chagrin to most behaviorists. Lovaas' work found that the active ingredient in ABA was the contingent use of aversives, such as hitting, slaps, water in the face and even in some cases electric shock. Without the aversives Lovaas (1987) would not have its marketing points and ABA never would have been able to achieve its current status as a cottage industry. This is in spite of the fact that the Hughes act outlawed aversives on developmentally disabled children in 1991. Therefore in jurisdictions such as my home state of California where aversives are a no-no, ABA is dishonestly marketed. Lovaas claimed in a rebuttal to his detractors written about 8 years ago or so that he had found new methods that made the use of aversives obsolete. If this is the case, to the best of my knowledge, he has never presented any evidence of this in a peer reviewed journal-the same fate that has become of his apparently NIMH funded aborted study of the adult outcomes of these children.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation may or may not be a state of the art treatment that will produce pie-in-the-sky rather than shit-from-the-sewer results in persons with autism. Interestingly enough, John Elder Robison, who wrote the bestseller Look Me in the Eye has gotten into the act This is in spite of the fact that on page 5 of his book he states that Asperger's is not a disease but a different way of being. He went on to state there was no cure and no need for one. Yet now he seems to feel the need to be a guinea pig in TMS research stating:
"I knew how much I had struggled as a young person - not knowing, being called 'retard' or 'freak.' This might help young people."
A possible complication from TMS is that it can induce seizure disorders. But supposedly, technology has improved and people have learned how to use this effectively enough to avoid giving someone a seizure.
Though this might be a good line of research at some point in time, one problem I have is that not enough is known about the etiology of the brain dysfunction responsible for ASD's. I suppose if Dr. Casanova were available to me he could explain the rationale to me based on what is known of the neurophysiology of autism aside from the work he has done on minicolumns. It may be that the autistic brain has various things wrong with it in various regions spread out diffusely within the brain. There may be an elaborate mirror neuron system with a variety of connections and it might be hard to find anything that is wrong. I guess Dr. Casanova being the recipient of the grant may have to show some evidence that this is a promising line of research and possible treatment of autism. Of course the same cannot be said of Dr. Lovaas and his cronies. If the work is replicated by a researcher besides Dr. Casanova perhaps studies could be made of TMS in lieu of ABA rather than as an adjunct with ABA. As regular gadfly readers (of which I know there are not very many)I am a cynic when it comes to anything in autism research or the new autism treatments that come up not infrequently as variable flavors of the month. This work may or may not yield some promise for autistic people, but it may not generate anything other than a bitter harvest for years or decades to come. Also work in neurofeedback such as what Jaime Pineda and Lindsay Oberman and their ilk are doing may also be promising avenues. This work may generate figurative diamonds in the rough at some point in time. Much work needs to be done though.
supreme court allows special educators to gouge families
In the special education law case of Forest Grove school district vs. T.A. the supreme court has rendered a verdict The question before the supreme court was whether or not school districts were legally obligated to pay private school tuition even if no alternative had been tried with the public schools. The student ,T.A., had attended a private residential school costing more than $60,000 per year. The issue at hand was a 1997 amendment to the IDEA stating that parents could enroll their children in private schools on the taxpayer's dime if the public schools did not offer a free and appropriate education in a timely manner. The supreme court ruled in a 6-3 decision that school districts are obligated to pay for private school even if no special ed services were ever rendered.
For some strange reason T.A. was not identified as having ADHD and learning disabilities until well in adolescence. It was during his junior year in high school that his parents had taken him out of the public school in which he had apparently never received special education services in elementary, middle school, and well into his high school education. I have to wonder why the parents had not noticed there was something wrong with their son until he was a teenager and then apparently decided to send him to this residential school at a cost of more than $5,000/month.
The New York times article goes on to state that the City of New York filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Forest Grove school district in Oregon. The amount of money that NYC spends on private school tuition for disabled children has jumped from 53 million to 89 million in only two years. I wonder how much more it will jump in New York and in other cities because of the supreme court's decision.
David Souter, a more rational head on the U.S. Supreme court and one of the three dissenters of the ruling ,stated the implications well:
“Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote. “Given the burden of private school placement, it makes good sense to require parents to try to devise a satisfactory alternative within the public schools.”
In light of the supreme court's decision in the Shannon Carter case saying that taxpayers were required to pick up the tab for uncredentialed personnel teaching disabled children, one has to think about the implications. It will only mean private special education schools of dubious value will be an even bigger growth industry than ever before.
Apparently anyone who decides they have autism or Asperger's syndrome well into adulthood can start their own private school or become a consultant without licensing or credentialing of any kind. one example of this phenomena is valerie paradiz formerly an instructor at Bard College and author of the book, Elijah's cup, dealing with her son's asperger's syndrome then her own realization well into adulthood that she herself was on the spectrum in spite of being a college professor and a one time wife and mother. Ms. Paradiz has a Ph.D. in English literature with no training or formal credentials whatsoever in the field of autism or autism education. This did not stop her from pursuing a career as an autism consultant and apparently opening up her own private special ed school for persons on the autism spectrum. How many more Valerie Paradizs and $100 an hour phone consultation William Stillmans will come out of the woodwork with this new decision?
The Carter decision also set the precedent for a New York court decision Malkowitz v. DeBuono which paved the way for uncredentialed, untrained Lovaas/ABA therapists to practice at taxpayer expense.
These court decisions paved the way for allowing ABA to become a cottage industry, at least in the USA, allowing 20-year-old college students with no training, experience whatsoever to come to people's homes and be Lovaas therapists.
Because of this decision and T.A.'s parents' decision to wait until he was well into adolescence to send him to this exorbitantly expensive private school, he will probably have the taxpayers picking up the tab for all sorts of special ed goodies until he is aged out of the system at 21 or 22. How many other kids will this affect? Again, I do question what difference these private schools will make in their lives as well as the very expensive ABA therapies. How much will it really help them? Perhaps the money would be better spent using a suggestion I made in a previous gadfly post
I wonder how much money will be lost in property tax revenues from the various cities. How much will the education of regular education students suffer? Will this mean that houses get burglarized and burned down because there is no money left in municipality's budgets for police and fire protection after they are decimated with all the children who will be able to more easily attend private special ed schools on the taxpayer's dime? Then, if IDEA is ever fully funded with the federal government picking up 40% of the costs we have to wonder where all the money for federal expenditures will come from after they end up applying for social security and section 8 housing as adults after these private schools have not helped them function better in society at all.
For some strange reason T.A. was not identified as having ADHD and learning disabilities until well in adolescence. It was during his junior year in high school that his parents had taken him out of the public school in which he had apparently never received special education services in elementary, middle school, and well into his high school education. I have to wonder why the parents had not noticed there was something wrong with their son until he was a teenager and then apparently decided to send him to this residential school at a cost of more than $5,000/month.
The New York times article goes on to state that the City of New York filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Forest Grove school district in Oregon. The amount of money that NYC spends on private school tuition for disabled children has jumped from 53 million to 89 million in only two years. I wonder how much more it will jump in New York and in other cities because of the supreme court's decision.
David Souter, a more rational head on the U.S. Supreme court and one of the three dissenters of the ruling ,stated the implications well:
“Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote. “Given the burden of private school placement, it makes good sense to require parents to try to devise a satisfactory alternative within the public schools.”
In light of the supreme court's decision in the Shannon Carter case saying that taxpayers were required to pick up the tab for uncredentialed personnel teaching disabled children, one has to think about the implications. It will only mean private special education schools of dubious value will be an even bigger growth industry than ever before.
Apparently anyone who decides they have autism or Asperger's syndrome well into adulthood can start their own private school or become a consultant without licensing or credentialing of any kind. one example of this phenomena is valerie paradiz formerly an instructor at Bard College and author of the book, Elijah's cup, dealing with her son's asperger's syndrome then her own realization well into adulthood that she herself was on the spectrum in spite of being a college professor and a one time wife and mother. Ms. Paradiz has a Ph.D. in English literature with no training or formal credentials whatsoever in the field of autism or autism education. This did not stop her from pursuing a career as an autism consultant and apparently opening up her own private special ed school for persons on the autism spectrum. How many more Valerie Paradizs and $100 an hour phone consultation William Stillmans will come out of the woodwork with this new decision?
The Carter decision also set the precedent for a New York court decision Malkowitz v. DeBuono which paved the way for uncredentialed, untrained Lovaas/ABA therapists to practice at taxpayer expense.
These court decisions paved the way for allowing ABA to become a cottage industry, at least in the USA, allowing 20-year-old college students with no training, experience whatsoever to come to people's homes and be Lovaas therapists.
Because of this decision and T.A.'s parents' decision to wait until he was well into adolescence to send him to this exorbitantly expensive private school, he will probably have the taxpayers picking up the tab for all sorts of special ed goodies until he is aged out of the system at 21 or 22. How many other kids will this affect? Again, I do question what difference these private schools will make in their lives as well as the very expensive ABA therapies. How much will it really help them? Perhaps the money would be better spent using a suggestion I made in a previous gadfly post
I wonder how much money will be lost in property tax revenues from the various cities. How much will the education of regular education students suffer? Will this mean that houses get burglarized and burned down because there is no money left in municipality's budgets for police and fire protection after they are decimated with all the children who will be able to more easily attend private special ed schools on the taxpayer's dime? Then, if IDEA is ever fully funded with the federal government picking up 40% of the costs we have to wonder where all the money for federal expenditures will come from after they end up applying for social security and section 8 housing as adults after these private schools have not helped them function better in society at all.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Anticure autistics review taxpayer subsidized research grants for autism
I see that by looking at john Elder Robison's blog that he has been picked as part of a panel to review research grants for autism that are paid with federal tax dollars. Robison has written a book "Look me in the Eye" concerning his conclusion well into adulthood that he has Asperger's syndrome. In the book he states that no cure is necessary for autism spectrum disorders. It also shows him pictured with fellow, anti-cure autistic Stephen Shore, the sole member of the IACC on the autistic spectrum. Shore was also part of this panel that reviewed grants for autism research subsidized by federal tax dollars.
It seemed strange to me that the Combating Autism Act was passed by congress, which was lobbied by CAN (the predecessor of Autism Speaks) and other pro-cure groups. The only intent of the act was to find ways to cure and prevent autism. The IACC grew out of the combating autism act which would make decisions on how to best dispense research dollars on projects that would find ways to cure and prevent autism. The law stated that one of the public board member of the IACC had to be on the autistic spectrum. Because of his prolific conference appearances, Shore came recommended to serve on the panel in spite of the fact he has publicly opposed a cure for autism. This seemed strange to me. It also seemed strange to me that neurodiversity proponents like Ari Ne'eman and Katie Miller would be allowed to testify before the IACC on the taxpayer's dime about how terrible a cure for autism would be and how they have some quick solutions. Now, the story gets uglier by the minute. We see Robison, someone who was married, had a kid, worked successfully for many years and did not find out he had Asperger's well into adulthood being chosen to be on a panel with Shore that reviews research grants to be applied to autistics such as myself and others. Probably 99.9% of us are far lower functioning than they are and at least some of us would like a cure.
The Combating autism act and the IACC and the federal government program that reviews how research dollars subsidized by tax dollars taken from us by force that decides who and what get funded, and by anti-cure autistics. Well another fine example of our tax dollars at work. *Sigh*.
It seemed strange to me that the Combating Autism Act was passed by congress, which was lobbied by CAN (the predecessor of Autism Speaks) and other pro-cure groups. The only intent of the act was to find ways to cure and prevent autism. The IACC grew out of the combating autism act which would make decisions on how to best dispense research dollars on projects that would find ways to cure and prevent autism. The law stated that one of the public board member of the IACC had to be on the autistic spectrum. Because of his prolific conference appearances, Shore came recommended to serve on the panel in spite of the fact he has publicly opposed a cure for autism. This seemed strange to me. It also seemed strange to me that neurodiversity proponents like Ari Ne'eman and Katie Miller would be allowed to testify before the IACC on the taxpayer's dime about how terrible a cure for autism would be and how they have some quick solutions. Now, the story gets uglier by the minute. We see Robison, someone who was married, had a kid, worked successfully for many years and did not find out he had Asperger's well into adulthood being chosen to be on a panel with Shore that reviews research grants to be applied to autistics such as myself and others. Probably 99.9% of us are far lower functioning than they are and at least some of us would like a cure.
The Combating autism act and the IACC and the federal government program that reviews how research dollars subsidized by tax dollars taken from us by force that decides who and what get funded, and by anti-cure autistics. Well another fine example of our tax dollars at work. *Sigh*.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Jonathan Mitchell Autistic suck-up
I have been reading a rather interesting and amusing thread about your humble blogger. I am referred to as an example of an "autistic suckup" by some neurodiversity character who calls herself "sadder but wiser girl". This gal seems rather unhappy that I want a cure for my autism and that I don't like the neurodiversity movement. She seems to think I am spouting hate and drivel. She quotes from my article neurodiversity, just say no. She is concerned about the fact that I talk about my problems in the work place and in social relationships. She goes on to dispute the fact that I am stereotyping autistics as not being capable of relationships. This is certainly not true. I only said that autistics have impairments in relationships that often make it hard for them to find girlfriends (if they are a male autistic or a lesbian autistic). Certainly part of the diagnostic criteria of the DSM involves impaired ability to form relationships. It would appear if anyone is making stereotypes it is her. She just tries to feebly refute my arguments by showing examples of how allegedly autistic persons have romantic relationships and some NTs are single. She quotes from my article where I state:
Sometimes i would make above average errors at work, though there was some discrimination as well, (emphasis added) this does not fit in with neurodiversity's solution of accommodation.
She then goes on to quote the part where I talk about self-injurious behaviors and ask what ND's want to do about that. She talks about how her sister had self-injury issues and said the solution was simple for her:
I can come up with an easy answer for that one: If society is changed, people won't see the need to dope them up with behavioral meds and do all kinds of psychologically harmful things to them to get them to stop them from banging their heads. My sister used to headbang, but we figured out that the problem was due to us yelling and bickering too much and because of us yelling at her. We have refrained from doing so and the headbanging problem, while it hasn't gone away completely, has lessened. Whenever I catch her trying to headbang, I just turn her face so that she is looking towards me and tell her "no." I then give her a hug to make her feel better and everyday, she is doing better.
Hasn't gone away completely? Does that mean she just does it five times a day instead of ten times a day? This lady is certainly vague here. Or assuming the headbanging has mostly gone away, how discomforting it must be for the parents who spent tens of thousands of dollars on ABA and biomed and still have their children headbanging or the ones who were presumably able to eliminate it spent all that money for naught. This lady must not have really gotten any wiser despite her nom de plume, as she could have hung out her shingle, cured or at least mitigated every single low functioning child who engaged in self-injurious behavior, charged less than one-tenth of what ABA and biomed practitioners charged and still become a multimillionaire. One must wonder if she really has this solution, why hasn't the world beaten a path to her door?
She is apparent disgusted by the fact that I have criticized neurodiversity for not wanting to help people with autism who are nonverbal:
Jonathan Mitchell goes on to say that "even assuming [facilitated communication] could be used for every nonverbal autistic certainly is not the same as normal speech and would not enable them to function at the same level as a normal speaking person." There we go again with the disgusting crap about how only "a normal speaking person" deserves to be emulated. This destructive drivel has been the justification for the harm of so many autistic persons. Jonathan Mitchell, if you are reading this and think that a person being "low-functioning" is a reason to do all kinds of crap to get them into the "normal" circle or "help" them
So apparently club ND just wants nonverbal autistics to rot. Wanting an autistic person to be able to communicate is just "disgusting crap". I wonder how parents of autistic parents who wish for their nonverbal children to speak would like to be enlightened that giving a nonspeaking person with autism speech is only "destructive drivel". If others of the ND persuasion feel this way, then they are lying when they say some of us misrepresent ND by saying they don't want to help persons with autism. This person clearly does not want to help persons with autism speak, how else can this be construed?
She then goes on to dispute what I say about autistic having problems with unemployment pointing out that "some autistics like Stephen Spielberg" have made a lot of money, yet provides no evidence that Spielberg is in fact autistic. Again, we see the use of celebrities and historical figures as examples of autistic successes because they can't find very many success stories among persons with legitimate autism.
She then goes on to talk about how I have taken umbrage to the fact that many in club ND have blamed me and other "curebies" for Katie McCarrons murder by virtue of the fact that autism speaks supposedly made a video saying that autistics would be better off dead shortly before Katie was murdered. Somehow the causal relationship there eludes me. I wonder why no tears are shed for Ashley Brock or many of the other autistic children who drowned or were run over by cars or trains, killing them in childhood. ND does not want to do anything about this, they want these people to continue being autistic so this can happen, so complaining about Katie McCarron's murder is certainly hypocritical.
She then goes on with these words of wisdom which she was apparently quoting from "The autism bitch from hell" About how autistics like me are just parasites on the dole and are just victims of learned helplessness, using our autism as an excuse for everything:
They cling to their autism diagnosis like it's a security blanket that protects them from ever having to take responsibility to improve their lives. They reflexively oppose any efforts by autistic activists to raise the issue of employment discrimination because they fear that they will lose their disability payments if other autistic people get jobs. They will grovel at the feet of any bureaucrat who can give them a benefit check, pat them sweetly on their incompetent little heads, and reassure them that they're not to blame for any of their failures because their poor defective brains weren't capable of anything better.
I find this statement rather odd in light of the fact while Frank Klein and Amanda Baggs, two of the most prominent proponents of neurodiversity, as far as I can tell never worked a day in their life and collected thousands of dollars in social security and section 8 housing, subsdized by the taxpayers. In spite of multiple firings and tremdendous problems in the workplace, I worked far more than I didn't work from age 24 to 51, paying thousands of dollars in taxes. In fact the last 9 years I worked I was an independent contractor rather than a statutory employee, paying double the social security taxes. Though I have applied for SSDI in my 50s, it is improbable I will get it and it is based on tens of thousands of dollars I have put into social security. What a bunch of nonsense and drivel this young lady is espousing. I wonder why she is not critical of Frank or Amanda for all of the thousands of dollars they have cost the taxpayers. If anyone grovels at the feet of bureaucrats that will give them a disability check it would seem to me to be a number of neurodiversity proponents, who claim that they deserve this money and would turn down a cure, even if it means that there not being cured would have to be subsidized by taxpayers.
The thread goes on with responses by various posters to sadder but wisers article comparing me to a nazi who caused the holocaust, with an uncle tom black person and someone violating others civil rights. She goes on to call me an uncle tom autistic.
In another post in the thread sadder but wiser gives a plug to Phil Gluyas' Mitchell's gadfly website. This is in spite of the fact she herself expresses disdain for Gluyas obnoxious behavior but does not like him very much herself but justifies her plug with "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" cliche. From what I have seen most of Gluyas' fellow neurodiversitites don't even like him very much. He is an embarrassment to their movement by his imbecilic comments, his rudeness and obnoxious behavior. He was even threatened with being banned from Wrong Planet and had to leave the website in order to save face. Most of his fellow NDs I am sure wish he would join the other side and become a curebie. So I must be making an impact if this gal has to stoop to giving Gluyas a plug.
Someone else took a cheap shot at me and stated that someone who met me told them that I often smelled bad because i did not shower or brush my teeth or change my clothes and speculated this may have contributed to my job losses and lack of social contacts. Actually, at one time this was partially true. Though I changed clothes and brushed teeth, I did not always shower and used deodorant and had issues with hygiene. This was up until the late 1980s I wrote about it in my article about undiagnosing bill gates and other persons. Being fired from a job where one person said there had been problems with hygiene pretty much cured me of this and I then was able to take better care of my hygiene in spite of executive dysfunction problems. Persons claiming Bill Gates is autistic have used this hygiene argument to try to prove he is on the spectrum. So, the ND's know that this is one thing that handicaps autistic persons. However, I did not get involved in autism society activities and meeting others on the spectrum until 1991. So assuming this person who allegedly knew me really did tell that to this other person, it would just be from having read what I wrote in my article rather than having met me and noticing that I smelled bad. Of course, leave it to club ND to claim they want to treat persons with autism with respect and then resort to these cheap shots.
They also claimed that I often insulted persons and did not refute arguments with facts. I never insulted anyone unless they insulted me first. Of course, now I try to take the high road and regret that I did not heed the don't feed the trolls signs and responded to the flame-bait that was thrown at me. I did make one snappy comeback today to Socrates who was bashing me in Gonzo's forum today because I just could not resist. Since Gonzo has comment moderation I am not sure she will publish it. However, this is a rareity and it was in response to Harry Williams (Socrates) insults. This is an individual who often likes to take cheap shots at my disability in finding girlfriend. It shows the character and the hypocrisy of club ND along with the statement that somehow those of us who wish for a cure grovel at the feet of bureaucrats to get a check when Klein and Baggs, their major spokespeople are about the most prolific collectors of welfare and subsidized housing around.
Funny that they would call me an uncle tom autistic who wants to maintain the status quo, when I have been very critical of biomed, ABA, and have urged the abolition of the IDEA. Ari Ne'eman and ASAN are lobbying congress for full federal funding of special education, so more kids can be segregated in special ed schools, exploited and treated like crap while their parents and special educators play God with their IEPs. Interesting that Sadder but Wiser calls autism speaks a hate organization, yet does not seem to mind the fact that Michelle Dawson who claims that AS wants a short future for autistic people continues to work in the research group of Laurent Mottron who has received a half million dollar grant from the organization she detests so much. When asked why she continued to work with Mottron and why she did not resign in protest all she could come up with was the stupefying copout that "science wasn't politics". I wonder why I am an uncle tom autistic and not Ari and Michelle. That is pretty funny actually.
Well Sadder but Wiser: Thanks for giving me a good laugh and for devoting so much of your time to giving your very pathetic critiques of my work and also showing me that this proves I must be making an impact.
Sometimes i would make above average errors at work, though there was some discrimination as well, (emphasis added) this does not fit in with neurodiversity's solution of accommodation.
She then goes on to state:
He blames his being autistic for all of his problems and doesn't consider that the problems may be due to discrimination rather than the fact that he is autistic.
So even though I highlighted the part of my article from which she quotes as acknowledging that discrimination I received in the workplace was in fact part (though not all) of the reasons I had job problems, she still goes on to state that I don't realize my problems might have been due to discrimination. This shows that sadder but wiser does not even bother to read very carefully items she quotes from. But no, though people's prejudices were a part of the reason I was forced out of the workplace it was not the entire reason. I did make mistakes on jobs and had other problems. Also, the fact that I could not apply myself in school and learn computer programming or other skilled work (which I did try to learn at one time) were definitely factors that made me less employable. The disability to apply myself have executive functioning were intrinsic disabilities, this was not due to societal discrimination. Had I been able to learn to be a good computer programmer (or even plumber or whatever example you want to fill) I might have still had some problems due to people not liking me due to my loud voice or funny movements, I have no doubt that I would have been able to continue working and found a job where my idiosyncrasies would be overlooked if I had a skill that was in short supply and huge demand. This also contributes to problems in the workplace for autists.
She then goes on to quote the part where I talk about self-injurious behaviors and ask what ND's want to do about that. She talks about how her sister had self-injury issues and said the solution was simple for her:
I can come up with an easy answer for that one: If society is changed, people won't see the need to dope them up with behavioral meds and do all kinds of psychologically harmful things to them to get them to stop them from banging their heads. My sister used to headbang, but we figured out that the problem was due to us yelling and bickering too much and because of us yelling at her. We have refrained from doing so and the headbanging problem, while it hasn't gone away completely, has lessened. Whenever I catch her trying to headbang, I just turn her face so that she is looking towards me and tell her "no." I then give her a hug to make her feel better and everyday, she is doing better.
Hasn't gone away completely? Does that mean she just does it five times a day instead of ten times a day? This lady is certainly vague here. Or assuming the headbanging has mostly gone away, how discomforting it must be for the parents who spent tens of thousands of dollars on ABA and biomed and still have their children headbanging or the ones who were presumably able to eliminate it spent all that money for naught. This lady must not have really gotten any wiser despite her nom de plume, as she could have hung out her shingle, cured or at least mitigated every single low functioning child who engaged in self-injurious behavior, charged less than one-tenth of what ABA and biomed practitioners charged and still become a multimillionaire. One must wonder if she really has this solution, why hasn't the world beaten a path to her door?
She is apparent disgusted by the fact that I have criticized neurodiversity for not wanting to help people with autism who are nonverbal:
Jonathan Mitchell goes on to say that "even assuming [facilitated communication] could be used for every nonverbal autistic certainly is not the same as normal speech and would not enable them to function at the same level as a normal speaking person." There we go again with the disgusting crap about how only "a normal speaking person" deserves to be emulated. This destructive drivel has been the justification for the harm of so many autistic persons. Jonathan Mitchell, if you are reading this and think that a person being "low-functioning" is a reason to do all kinds of crap to get them into the "normal" circle or "help" them
So apparently club ND just wants nonverbal autistics to rot. Wanting an autistic person to be able to communicate is just "disgusting crap". I wonder how parents of autistic parents who wish for their nonverbal children to speak would like to be enlightened that giving a nonspeaking person with autism speech is only "destructive drivel". If others of the ND persuasion feel this way, then they are lying when they say some of us misrepresent ND by saying they don't want to help persons with autism. This person clearly does not want to help persons with autism speak, how else can this be construed?
She then goes on to dispute what I say about autistic having problems with unemployment pointing out that "some autistics like Stephen Spielberg" have made a lot of money, yet provides no evidence that Spielberg is in fact autistic. Again, we see the use of celebrities and historical figures as examples of autistic successes because they can't find very many success stories among persons with legitimate autism.
She then goes on to talk about how I have taken umbrage to the fact that many in club ND have blamed me and other "curebies" for Katie McCarrons murder by virtue of the fact that autism speaks supposedly made a video saying that autistics would be better off dead shortly before Katie was murdered. Somehow the causal relationship there eludes me. I wonder why no tears are shed for Ashley Brock or many of the other autistic children who drowned or were run over by cars or trains, killing them in childhood. ND does not want to do anything about this, they want these people to continue being autistic so this can happen, so complaining about Katie McCarron's murder is certainly hypocritical.
She then goes on with these words of wisdom which she was apparently quoting from "The autism bitch from hell" About how autistics like me are just parasites on the dole and are just victims of learned helplessness, using our autism as an excuse for everything:
They cling to their autism diagnosis like it's a security blanket that protects them from ever having to take responsibility to improve their lives. They reflexively oppose any efforts by autistic activists to raise the issue of employment discrimination because they fear that they will lose their disability payments if other autistic people get jobs. They will grovel at the feet of any bureaucrat who can give them a benefit check, pat them sweetly on their incompetent little heads, and reassure them that they're not to blame for any of their failures because their poor defective brains weren't capable of anything better.
I find this statement rather odd in light of the fact while Frank Klein and Amanda Baggs, two of the most prominent proponents of neurodiversity, as far as I can tell never worked a day in their life and collected thousands of dollars in social security and section 8 housing, subsdized by the taxpayers. In spite of multiple firings and tremdendous problems in the workplace, I worked far more than I didn't work from age 24 to 51, paying thousands of dollars in taxes. In fact the last 9 years I worked I was an independent contractor rather than a statutory employee, paying double the social security taxes. Though I have applied for SSDI in my 50s, it is improbable I will get it and it is based on tens of thousands of dollars I have put into social security. What a bunch of nonsense and drivel this young lady is espousing. I wonder why she is not critical of Frank or Amanda for all of the thousands of dollars they have cost the taxpayers. If anyone grovels at the feet of bureaucrats that will give them a disability check it would seem to me to be a number of neurodiversity proponents, who claim that they deserve this money and would turn down a cure, even if it means that there not being cured would have to be subsidized by taxpayers.
The thread goes on with responses by various posters to sadder but wisers article comparing me to a nazi who caused the holocaust, with an uncle tom black person and someone violating others civil rights. She goes on to call me an uncle tom autistic.
In another post in the thread sadder but wiser gives a plug to Phil Gluyas' Mitchell's gadfly website. This is in spite of the fact she herself expresses disdain for Gluyas obnoxious behavior but does not like him very much herself but justifies her plug with "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" cliche. From what I have seen most of Gluyas' fellow neurodiversitites don't even like him very much. He is an embarrassment to their movement by his imbecilic comments, his rudeness and obnoxious behavior. He was even threatened with being banned from Wrong Planet and had to leave the website in order to save face. Most of his fellow NDs I am sure wish he would join the other side and become a curebie. So I must be making an impact if this gal has to stoop to giving Gluyas a plug.
Someone else took a cheap shot at me and stated that someone who met me told them that I often smelled bad because i did not shower or brush my teeth or change my clothes and speculated this may have contributed to my job losses and lack of social contacts. Actually, at one time this was partially true. Though I changed clothes and brushed teeth, I did not always shower and used deodorant and had issues with hygiene. This was up until the late 1980s I wrote about it in my article about undiagnosing bill gates and other persons. Being fired from a job where one person said there had been problems with hygiene pretty much cured me of this and I then was able to take better care of my hygiene in spite of executive dysfunction problems. Persons claiming Bill Gates is autistic have used this hygiene argument to try to prove he is on the spectrum. So, the ND's know that this is one thing that handicaps autistic persons. However, I did not get involved in autism society activities and meeting others on the spectrum until 1991. So assuming this person who allegedly knew me really did tell that to this other person, it would just be from having read what I wrote in my article rather than having met me and noticing that I smelled bad. Of course, leave it to club ND to claim they want to treat persons with autism with respect and then resort to these cheap shots.
They also claimed that I often insulted persons and did not refute arguments with facts. I never insulted anyone unless they insulted me first. Of course, now I try to take the high road and regret that I did not heed the don't feed the trolls signs and responded to the flame-bait that was thrown at me. I did make one snappy comeback today to Socrates who was bashing me in Gonzo's forum today because I just could not resist. Since Gonzo has comment moderation I am not sure she will publish it. However, this is a rareity and it was in response to Harry Williams (Socrates) insults. This is an individual who often likes to take cheap shots at my disability in finding girlfriend. It shows the character and the hypocrisy of club ND along with the statement that somehow those of us who wish for a cure grovel at the feet of bureaucrats to get a check when Klein and Baggs, their major spokespeople are about the most prolific collectors of welfare and subsidized housing around.
Funny that they would call me an uncle tom autistic who wants to maintain the status quo, when I have been very critical of biomed, ABA, and have urged the abolition of the IDEA. Ari Ne'eman and ASAN are lobbying congress for full federal funding of special education, so more kids can be segregated in special ed schools, exploited and treated like crap while their parents and special educators play God with their IEPs. Interesting that Sadder but Wiser calls autism speaks a hate organization, yet does not seem to mind the fact that Michelle Dawson who claims that AS wants a short future for autistic people continues to work in the research group of Laurent Mottron who has received a half million dollar grant from the organization she detests so much. When asked why she continued to work with Mottron and why she did not resign in protest all she could come up with was the stupefying copout that "science wasn't politics". I wonder why I am an uncle tom autistic and not Ari and Michelle. That is pretty funny actually.
Well Sadder but Wiser: Thanks for giving me a good laugh and for devoting so much of your time to giving your very pathetic critiques of my work and also showing me that this proves I must be making an impact.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Is intelligence an indicator of prognosis in high functioning autism?
Yet, still on the same subject that was started by the recently published study of Isabel Souleries, I have yet some new thoughts that have been on my mind. When I questioned the statement of Michelle Dawson that she hoped that the effect of her 2007 paper on Raven's vs. Wechsler would have the practical effect of autistic persons not being written off I was challenged by one of the most prolific commenters on this blog, Lorene Amet (AKA SM69). She asked me how I could say that since if the intelligence and capabilities of persons with autism were questioned this would influence the prognosis and the likelihood of success. This is sort of similar to the thesis of the Mottron group which states that their research will help prove how capable many autistics are by showing where their abilities lie. Lorene also questioned my statement that an autistic brain is diseased and/or defective. She seemed to think that nothing was wrong with the brains of persons with autism but only some peripheral physiology that affected their brains. I responded to her comment, but in retrospect I feel I could have given her a better response and my response was far from complete, so I would like to write about this now.
The issues involved in Souleries, Dawson's, Boelte's etc. studies are whether or not intelligence in autistics has been underestimated. This might be due to the fact that the Wechsler is not a valid IQ test for testing autistics due to their unique way of being. The Raven's or some other instrument might be more valid. If so, then we can do a better job of teaching autistics and their overall prognosis might not be as poor.
Part of the problem with the Souleries study was that the autistic participants, as measured by the Wechsler are reasonably intelligent on average to begin with.
The average full scale IQ was 100.87 with a range of 85-121. The average verbal IQ was 99.20 with a range of 81-121 the average performance IQ was 102.8 with a range of 95-120. Therefore the majority of these subjects were likely of average or better intelligence to begin with.
But let's dispense with all of this and get to the real nitty gritty. What if the Mottron group is correct in their assertions that intelligence in autistics has been underestimated. What if many if not most autistic people are truly intelligent? Aside from the obvious fact that it is quite possible the autistic with an IQ of greater than 100 will have a more favorable prognosis than one with an IQ of less than 70, lets just confine the question to higher functioning autistics, lets say those with a verbal IQ of 100 or higher. Or even some persons with autism who seem very intelligent to me based on my subjective perception of interacting with them on the internet without knowing how well they might do on a standardized test.
At the risk of immodesty, I count myself in this category. I believe that I am an intelligent person. I am able to express my thoughts well and write a reasonably good blog post. At the age of 11 my reading ability was tested at a tenth grade level. This is in spite the of the fact that at this time I had never received a mainstream education of any kind. I also managed to graduate from college, something some neurotypicals have not been able to do. Yet, I had to give up working, I have had problems with funny movements, motor impairments, inability to completely care for myself and immense problems with social relationships and phobias. My voice is uncontrollably loud. Autism has made my life hard and has incapacitated me, except for being able to write some of these blog posts. This blog has actually given my mundane life some meaning.
Moving onto other people, I see glimmers of intelligence of a number of my blog readers with autism. First there is Jake Crosby who spent a fair amount of time in self-contained special education classes. He probably was not able to receive the same educational opportunities as some other children who were not on the autism spectrum. At age 20 he currently attends Brandeis, a major university. He writes very articulate and thoughtful posts on the Age of Autism blog. This is to the chagrin of neurodiversity proponents who complain about autism speaks and other organizations they don't like not putting autistics in positions of power or allowing their voices to be heard. Yet when age of autism put this autistic individual on their editorial board at an extremely young age, they immediately cried "token autistic". Also condescending statements and attitudes towards Jake due to his age were at times expressed. Jake seems well read to me on a variety of autism issues and has shown intelligence to me. Roger Kulp, another one of my readers with autism, also seems to show a high level of intelligence based on some of the comments he has written on my blog and others. There is no question that this individual's intelligence is more than intact. Stephanie Lynn Keil is yet another example of this. In addition to this 21-year-old young woman being an extremely talented artist, she also has an IQ which may be in the genius or near genius level. In spite of spending much time in institutions during her childhood, she has managed to become educated enough to read psychiatric textbooks and understand them with great precision.
I offer apologies in advance to any of the above-mentioned individuals if I made any factual errors about them or they were not happy about me mentioning them in a blog post.
What do these three (four including me) intelligent individuals with autism have in common. We all hate our autism. We don't subscribe to the neurodiversity philosophy and wish we could be cured. Why must that be if we are so intelligent?
In Jake's case, he got a poor grade on one of his history papers because he was too disorganized and lacked the executive function to cite references properly. His autism has made it difficult for him to plan and do things that he wants.
Roger Kulp's behavior has regressed at various times in his life. He has not worked and has had to be on SSI. He has had problems with elopement and other problems with autism that have made his life difficult in spite of having an intact intelligence.
Stephanie is also on SSI and has had problems with self-injury and other issues. She lived in institutions for a number of years but fortunately was able to live with her father at his house where I think she still lives.
How can these persons have all these problems when they are intelligent, yet, according to Mottron and to others intelligence in autistics means a good prognosis and means we should not regard them as write-offs? Perhaps the answer is that intelligence does not necessarily mitigate the problems of autism in most persons with this affliction. A score on the Wechsler, the Ravens or any other standardized test, the ability to solve problems rapidly in an fMRI scanner probably does not correlate with the ability to pay the rent, have social relationships or control difficult behavior.
Perhaps it is time to rethink our view of recognition of intelligence being a salvation for those on the spectrum who are high functioning (at least intelligence-wise).
I hope none of the above individuals takes offense at my writing about them.
The issues involved in Souleries, Dawson's, Boelte's etc. studies are whether or not intelligence in autistics has been underestimated. This might be due to the fact that the Wechsler is not a valid IQ test for testing autistics due to their unique way of being. The Raven's or some other instrument might be more valid. If so, then we can do a better job of teaching autistics and their overall prognosis might not be as poor.
Part of the problem with the Souleries study was that the autistic participants, as measured by the Wechsler are reasonably intelligent on average to begin with.
The average full scale IQ was 100.87 with a range of 85-121. The average verbal IQ was 99.20 with a range of 81-121 the average performance IQ was 102.8 with a range of 95-120. Therefore the majority of these subjects were likely of average or better intelligence to begin with.
But let's dispense with all of this and get to the real nitty gritty. What if the Mottron group is correct in their assertions that intelligence in autistics has been underestimated. What if many if not most autistic people are truly intelligent? Aside from the obvious fact that it is quite possible the autistic with an IQ of greater than 100 will have a more favorable prognosis than one with an IQ of less than 70, lets just confine the question to higher functioning autistics, lets say those with a verbal IQ of 100 or higher. Or even some persons with autism who seem very intelligent to me based on my subjective perception of interacting with them on the internet without knowing how well they might do on a standardized test.
At the risk of immodesty, I count myself in this category. I believe that I am an intelligent person. I am able to express my thoughts well and write a reasonably good blog post. At the age of 11 my reading ability was tested at a tenth grade level. This is in spite the of the fact that at this time I had never received a mainstream education of any kind. I also managed to graduate from college, something some neurotypicals have not been able to do. Yet, I had to give up working, I have had problems with funny movements, motor impairments, inability to completely care for myself and immense problems with social relationships and phobias. My voice is uncontrollably loud. Autism has made my life hard and has incapacitated me, except for being able to write some of these blog posts. This blog has actually given my mundane life some meaning.
Moving onto other people, I see glimmers of intelligence of a number of my blog readers with autism. First there is Jake Crosby who spent a fair amount of time in self-contained special education classes. He probably was not able to receive the same educational opportunities as some other children who were not on the autism spectrum. At age 20 he currently attends Brandeis, a major university. He writes very articulate and thoughtful posts on the Age of Autism blog. This is to the chagrin of neurodiversity proponents who complain about autism speaks and other organizations they don't like not putting autistics in positions of power or allowing their voices to be heard. Yet when age of autism put this autistic individual on their editorial board at an extremely young age, they immediately cried "token autistic". Also condescending statements and attitudes towards Jake due to his age were at times expressed. Jake seems well read to me on a variety of autism issues and has shown intelligence to me. Roger Kulp, another one of my readers with autism, also seems to show a high level of intelligence based on some of the comments he has written on my blog and others. There is no question that this individual's intelligence is more than intact. Stephanie Lynn Keil is yet another example of this. In addition to this 21-year-old young woman being an extremely talented artist, she also has an IQ which may be in the genius or near genius level. In spite of spending much time in institutions during her childhood, she has managed to become educated enough to read psychiatric textbooks and understand them with great precision.
I offer apologies in advance to any of the above-mentioned individuals if I made any factual errors about them or they were not happy about me mentioning them in a blog post.
What do these three (four including me) intelligent individuals with autism have in common. We all hate our autism. We don't subscribe to the neurodiversity philosophy and wish we could be cured. Why must that be if we are so intelligent?
In Jake's case, he got a poor grade on one of his history papers because he was too disorganized and lacked the executive function to cite references properly. His autism has made it difficult for him to plan and do things that he wants.
Roger Kulp's behavior has regressed at various times in his life. He has not worked and has had to be on SSI. He has had problems with elopement and other problems with autism that have made his life difficult in spite of having an intact intelligence.
Stephanie is also on SSI and has had problems with self-injury and other issues. She lived in institutions for a number of years but fortunately was able to live with her father at his house where I think she still lives.
How can these persons have all these problems when they are intelligent, yet, according to Mottron and to others intelligence in autistics means a good prognosis and means we should not regard them as write-offs? Perhaps the answer is that intelligence does not necessarily mitigate the problems of autism in most persons with this affliction. A score on the Wechsler, the Ravens or any other standardized test, the ability to solve problems rapidly in an fMRI scanner probably does not correlate with the ability to pay the rent, have social relationships or control difficult behavior.
Perhaps it is time to rethink our view of recognition of intelligence being a salvation for those on the spectrum who are high functioning (at least intelligence-wise).
I hope none of the above individuals takes offense at my writing about them.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Has autism speaks picked up the tab for neurodiversity propaganda?
In a follow-up to my previous post I would like to pose the question about some things that I find rather ironic. Ever since its inception, the organization autism speaks has been the favorite whipping boy of the ND anticure movement. They have all expressed their contempt towards the organization. They have claimed the organization is deliberately trying to find ways to abort autistic fetuses, they have claimed that their goal of curation would only destroy autistic people by turning them into different persons. Some of them have claimed some sort of responsibility for the murder of Katie McCarron and possibly others with autism. This was likely based on the admittedly dumb remark made by Allison Tepper Singer where she fantasized about driving her car off a bridge with her daughter in it. To borrow from Richard Nixon Ms. Tepper Singer gave neurodiversity the sword and they thrusted it with relish.
Another absolutely bizarre complaint about autism speaks frequently made by ND proponents yet no one else is the absence of an autistic member of the board of directors. One wonders how they would feel about a pro-cure autistic being on that board. Would he/she receive the usual nasty neurodiversitite slur of being a house autistic or token autistic or quisling. If only an anti-cure rather than a pro-cure autistic should be appointed to the board of directors then one wonders why people should be appointed to the board of directors of an organization whose goals they totally oppose. I also wonder why not having an autistic member on the board of directors is a more important concern to club ND than the fact that as far as I can tell autism speaks does not have a single paid employee with autism working in their organization, not even as a minimum wage file clerk with a job coach. Autism speaks apparently spends money on huge executive salaries, private jets and possibly some other frills, yet can't help one of the many persons with autism who are unemployed make a living. This phenomena is especially intriguing in light of the autism in the workplace horse and pony show that AS puts on where they highlight employed (or in some cases semi-employed) persons with autism, talking about how urgent the problem of autistic unemployment is and how great these others were employing some autistic people. Apparently they take the attitude, it's fine if autistics work someplace else, but we don't want these incompetent, badly behaved people (from their point of view, not mine) screwing up our organization. How typical for those in neurodiversityland to miss the forest for the trees.
Clay Adams, one of the most cruel neurodiversity cyberbullies and hatemongers, is apparently dumbfounded that I could be a pro cure autistic and write posts on this blog to this effect. I must be a paid shill for generation rescue or autism speaks, there can be no other explanation for my behavior he has claimed. I must confess here that once in my life I did accept a free meal from autism speaks when my friend Matthew Belmonte who has his research funded by AS was in town and I met with him, Portia Iverson and some other people. Interestingly enough, I sat across the table at this dinner from the eminent Dr. Laurent Mottron whom I will write more about below. Dr. Mottron and I had a chat, he seemed somewhat intrigued by me and I discussed my job problems with him and he was curious why i was fired from various jobs and I told him about some of the issues I had; of course this is neither here nor there. I also was a research subject of Eric Courchesne's and received a small amount of money from his group for participating as his subject. I think some of this research may have been funded by CAN, the predecessor of AS. Now that I have declared these possible conflicts of interest, I will go on record that other than these trivial exceptions I have never received a dime from autism speaks or any other pro cure organization ever. I have never received a single dime from any of the posts that I have written in this blog.
Paradoxically, one of the things that seemed to inflame Mr. Adams the most about me was that I had the temerity to criticize his idol, Michelle Dawson. He stated that he wanted to give me a black eye for this. Why is this a paradox? Well Michelle Dawson works in the group that Dr. Mottron heads who was at this autism speaks dinner and conference in Los Angeles, because he happens to be a recipient of this funding. According to the AS website in 2008 he was awarded a grant of nearly half a million dollars. For some reason Adams was concerned that I was on the payroll of AS or some other likeminded organization, but apparently had no qualms about Dawson's involvement with this organization. I am still baffled by this paradox.
I wondered if Michelle Dawson had any involvement in any of the autism speaks funded projects that the Mottron group conducts. Yesterday I had my answer when I found out about the new study that Dr. Isabelle Soulieres recently published. Michelle Dawson was indeed a coauthor. This study was partially funded by Autism speaks!
I wrote in the previous post about how the Mottron group may be putting a rather disingenuous spin with the media on this research so I won't repeat all of that here. However, I would like to print one additional statement that Dr. Soulieres made to the media about the implications of her newly published and completely unreplicated study.
I hope the finding will convince people that autistics have a higher intellectual potential," said lead author Isabelle Soulieres, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard who completed this experiment in Montreal. "That way, people will expect more and give them more opportunities to learn
I see that Estee Klar-Wolfhond, author of the Joy of autism blog, has given this study a shoutout in her latest post. How soon will other neurodiversity autism speaks haters follow suit? Since this study has just come out I suspect there will be more takes and more spins on this study and the absolutely unproven allegations that the results could help autistics learn better or function better in society. How soon will it be before Soulieres, et. al. means that finding a treatment, cure or prevention will be absolutely superfluous according to the ND spinmeisters? I suspect we will be seeing more from them in this vein.
One only has to wonder how people who urge a boycott of Lindt Chocolate, Toys 'R' Us and other companies that help donate money to autism speaks can reconcile the fact that their idols Mottron and Dawson have accepted so much money from this organization? How will they be able to reconcile their boycotts yet ignore the fact the organization they loathe so much has paid to help them spew out their propaganda that autism is not a disease but only an alternative way of being and that with the right accommodations they can do anything a nonautistic person can do. The Soulieres study will likely be used as evidence of this, as was Dawson (2007) when it first came out.
I can only wonder about these things and see what happens but I reckon only time will tell.
Another absolutely bizarre complaint about autism speaks frequently made by ND proponents yet no one else is the absence of an autistic member of the board of directors. One wonders how they would feel about a pro-cure autistic being on that board. Would he/she receive the usual nasty neurodiversitite slur of being a house autistic or token autistic or quisling. If only an anti-cure rather than a pro-cure autistic should be appointed to the board of directors then one wonders why people should be appointed to the board of directors of an organization whose goals they totally oppose. I also wonder why not having an autistic member on the board of directors is a more important concern to club ND than the fact that as far as I can tell autism speaks does not have a single paid employee with autism working in their organization, not even as a minimum wage file clerk with a job coach. Autism speaks apparently spends money on huge executive salaries, private jets and possibly some other frills, yet can't help one of the many persons with autism who are unemployed make a living. This phenomena is especially intriguing in light of the autism in the workplace horse and pony show that AS puts on where they highlight employed (or in some cases semi-employed) persons with autism, talking about how urgent the problem of autistic unemployment is and how great these others were employing some autistic people. Apparently they take the attitude, it's fine if autistics work someplace else, but we don't want these incompetent, badly behaved people (from their point of view, not mine) screwing up our organization. How typical for those in neurodiversityland to miss the forest for the trees.
Clay Adams, one of the most cruel neurodiversity cyberbullies and hatemongers, is apparently dumbfounded that I could be a pro cure autistic and write posts on this blog to this effect. I must be a paid shill for generation rescue or autism speaks, there can be no other explanation for my behavior he has claimed. I must confess here that once in my life I did accept a free meal from autism speaks when my friend Matthew Belmonte who has his research funded by AS was in town and I met with him, Portia Iverson and some other people. Interestingly enough, I sat across the table at this dinner from the eminent Dr. Laurent Mottron whom I will write more about below. Dr. Mottron and I had a chat, he seemed somewhat intrigued by me and I discussed my job problems with him and he was curious why i was fired from various jobs and I told him about some of the issues I had; of course this is neither here nor there. I also was a research subject of Eric Courchesne's and received a small amount of money from his group for participating as his subject. I think some of this research may have been funded by CAN, the predecessor of AS. Now that I have declared these possible conflicts of interest, I will go on record that other than these trivial exceptions I have never received a dime from autism speaks or any other pro cure organization ever. I have never received a single dime from any of the posts that I have written in this blog.
Paradoxically, one of the things that seemed to inflame Mr. Adams the most about me was that I had the temerity to criticize his idol, Michelle Dawson. He stated that he wanted to give me a black eye for this. Why is this a paradox? Well Michelle Dawson works in the group that Dr. Mottron heads who was at this autism speaks dinner and conference in Los Angeles, because he happens to be a recipient of this funding. According to the AS website in 2008 he was awarded a grant of nearly half a million dollars. For some reason Adams was concerned that I was on the payroll of AS or some other likeminded organization, but apparently had no qualms about Dawson's involvement with this organization. I am still baffled by this paradox.
I wondered if Michelle Dawson had any involvement in any of the autism speaks funded projects that the Mottron group conducts. Yesterday I had my answer when I found out about the new study that Dr. Isabelle Soulieres recently published. Michelle Dawson was indeed a coauthor. This study was partially funded by Autism speaks!
I wrote in the previous post about how the Mottron group may be putting a rather disingenuous spin with the media on this research so I won't repeat all of that here. However, I would like to print one additional statement that Dr. Soulieres made to the media about the implications of her newly published and completely unreplicated study.
I hope the finding will convince people that autistics have a higher intellectual potential," said lead author Isabelle Soulieres, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard who completed this experiment in Montreal. "That way, people will expect more and give them more opportunities to learn
I see that Estee Klar-Wolfhond, author of the Joy of autism blog, has given this study a shoutout in her latest post. How soon will other neurodiversity autism speaks haters follow suit? Since this study has just come out I suspect there will be more takes and more spins on this study and the absolutely unproven allegations that the results could help autistics learn better or function better in society. How soon will it be before Soulieres, et. al. means that finding a treatment, cure or prevention will be absolutely superfluous according to the ND spinmeisters? I suspect we will be seeing more from them in this vein.
One only has to wonder how people who urge a boycott of Lindt Chocolate, Toys 'R' Us and other companies that help donate money to autism speaks can reconcile the fact that their idols Mottron and Dawson have accepted so much money from this organization? How will they be able to reconcile their boycotts yet ignore the fact the organization they loathe so much has paid to help them spew out their propaganda that autism is not a disease but only an alternative way of being and that with the right accommodations they can do anything a nonautistic person can do. The Soulieres study will likely be used as evidence of this, as was Dawson (2007) when it first came out.
I can only wonder about these things and see what happens but I reckon only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
