As people who've kept up with my most recent blog posts know, lately I've been writing about reported male to female ratios of autism and have given my somewhat limited take (due to lack of scientific training) on some of the reported studies on the matter. Those interested can check out a recent article I wrote on the subject published by Autism Parenting Magazine. Reported ratios were usually an average of four males for every female with some newer research suggesting the actual ratio might be closer to 3:1. In milder cases, the reported ratios have averaged about 6:1 or higher. In the more severe cases, reported ratios averaged about 2:1.
One explanation given for the discrepancies in ratios is that autism has been underestimated in higher-functioning females due to discrimination, the fact that autism presents differently in females than in males, social training girls receive as children that boys don't, and an interesting phenomenon called social camouflage, where women on the milder end of the spectrum are either more adept at disguising their autism than their male counterparts or more motivated for some reason that eludes me, or a combination of both. Before Autism Parenting published my article, I wrote a blog post about the subject.
This explanation is given by multiple neurodiversity proponents who are often extremely high-functioning females.
Among the largest body of scientific evidence showing boys are more susceptible to autism than girls is something called the female protective effect. This means that in order to become autistic, a girl must take a wider genetic hit to become autistic. Also differences in brain structure may account for a protective effect. Also mothers carry genes that make someone susceptible to autism and not become autistic themselves due to the protective effect. However, they often pass these genes onto their sons who become autistic. I reviewed some of the science behind this in the above-linked articles the interested reader can check out, so I won't do it again here. The evidence of a female protective effect has been widely replicated in a variety of studies and there is no question it exists.
One limitation of this science may be that it does not translate into what a precise ratio of autistic males to females would be. Theoretically the actual M:F ratio could be 2:1 or possibly lower even with a female protective effect. So the question is still open whether or not the 6:1 ratio in milder cases represents an underestimation of females.
One would think that female neurodiversity proponents who are so certain that social camouflage and other phenomena that keep women from getting a diagnosis would want to investigate the science behind it, write blog posts and essays explaining the protective effect and other scientific evidence that might dispute, but until recently (which I'll get to in a bit) there did not seem to be any interest in discussing the scientific evidence or lack of it. Instead, most female neurodiversity proponents state that autism is underestimated in women as fact. Apparently some of them don't even care about science or data.
The most prominent of these is Autistic Self Advocacy Network President Julia Bascom. She's written a rather interesting take on the subject.
Ms Bascom states:
Access to diagnosis, however, is still deeply inequitable. Autistic
women and girls are diagnosed much less frequently than autistic boys,
and we’re often diagnosed later in life, or after we’ve gone through a
roulette-wheel of other labels
It would appear she's discounting the possibility that it's not inequitable, but rather there really are more boys who present with diagnostic symptoms of autism than girls and some of the other labels may have actually been more accurate in the first place.
According to Bascom, racism plays a role in this and fosters an argument for social justice:
We still see significant underdiagnosis in communities of color, and we
still have yet to truthfully confront the role racism plays in that.
Ms Bascom goes on to state:
and the end result is that all across the globe, autistic women and girls are missed, overlooked, and ignored.
She neglects to provide any evidence for this hypothesis. Science aside, what of all the high profile autistic women such as Temple Grandin, Donna Williams, Carly Fleischman, and most recently newly minted lawyer Haley Moss, and all the media exposure they've received? if even a 3:1 M:F ratio is true, female spectrumites, if anything, have received disproportionately high amounts of attention.
Bascom goes even further in her apparent social justice war against reported gender ratios:
Instead of resting easily on statistics which claim only one autistic
woman exists for every 2, 4, or 9 autistic men, we should be working
relentlessly to close those gaps and make sure that everyone who needs a
diagnosis is connected to equitable support. Then we can have a count, I
suppose, if we still think we need one. My concern here isn’t really
about data. It’s about justice.
So here we have a tacit admission on Bascom's part that scientific data does not matter. Girls are often undiagnosed, so we must start a social justice war so these individuals can get the diagnosis they covet.
One possible flaw in Bascom's argument can be summed up in what she concedes is a frequent characteristic of many diagnosed females:
One of the most common ways for autistic women to get diagnosed, in fact, is after we bring our own children in for assessment.
Even though the DSM specifies that difficulties in reciprocal social relationships are part of the diagnostic criteria, women high functioning enough to have significant others and have children who are autistic, whom they've brought for assessment are among the most commonly diagnosed females on the spectrum. Why they would have been diagnosed with other labels, why their parents would not have brought them to the attention of a clinician in the first place are points to ponder.
Clearly, Bascom is more interested in social justice, having women "doctor shop" for a diagnosis, and possibly forcing clinicians to diagnose females who may not be on the spectrum than in actual data, It does not matter what the science says It does not matter what the established criteria of an autism dx is. It must be changed for women in order to promote social justice for women who need a diagnosis. Why would these women who can care for children need a diagnosis in the first place? Could it be this is the only way they can legitimize their crusade in favor of neurodiversity?
Only recently have Bascom and other female NDs shown a remote interest in establishing a scientific basis for their theories. Bascom was one of the co-authors of researcher Allison Ratto who did a study involving male and female autistics and a possible camouflage effect. They also appeared together on a recent Cspan show discussing these issues.
On watching this video, I was intrigued when I got to around the 22 minute 48 second part, where Julia Bascom is asked when she was diagnosed as autistic and was quite reticent, responding, "I don't talk about my life history on TV." This makes me wonder about Bascom's diagnosis. Was she self-diagnosed? Did she go to multiple clinicians before she got a diagnosis? Apparently, according to her own social justice theories, she would certainly do this to get an autism diagnosis. Did she bully some clinicians into diagnosing her somehow? Based on what she's written before, these are all interesting points to ponder.
A social justice crusade may result in more females being diagnosed under questionable circumstances, but it won't change the science of the female protective effect and other evidence that an at least 3:1 ratio of autistic males to females may be real. I feel that if neurodiversity proponents are going to allege that autism is definitely overlooked and underestimated in females they should provide scientific evidence of that fact rather than starting a social justice war to promote their position.
Friday, February 22, 2019
Thursday, February 14, 2019
My Autism Parenting Magazine article on male/female sex ratios in autism
About nine months ago, I posted a piece on this blog in which I discussed the issues of whether or not male to female sex ratios were underestimated in autism. I also discussed the phenomenon of "social camouflage" which suggests that many female autistics go under the radar due to an ability to mask their symptoms to adapt socially. This has become a fashionable trope of numerous female neurodiversity proponents. I stated that there was more info that I had, but would not publish it in that particular piece because I had submitted an article about it and hoped to get it published in a magazine.
Well, it happened. Autism Parenting Magazine published my piece. When it got published, a number of people on Facebook and other places were interested in reading it. Unfortunately it was behind a paywall and the magazine asked me not to release it to the general public.
However, the magazine a little while ago published my article as a blogpost That is the news for anyone who might be interested in reading this article. It discusses a variety of issues on why I believe that there is no scientific evidence for the neurodiversity movement's claim that autism has been underestimated in women. For those who may be interested in this subject, I hope you will read my article and enjoy it. For those in the ND movement who disagree with me, I hope you'll read it and think twice about alleging that autism ratios have been underestimated in women as fact.
Well, it happened. Autism Parenting Magazine published my piece. When it got published, a number of people on Facebook and other places were interested in reading it. Unfortunately it was behind a paywall and the magazine asked me not to release it to the general public.
However, the magazine a little while ago published my article as a blogpost That is the news for anyone who might be interested in reading this article. It discusses a variety of issues on why I believe that there is no scientific evidence for the neurodiversity movement's claim that autism has been underestimated in women. For those who may be interested in this subject, I hope you will read my article and enjoy it. For those in the ND movement who disagree with me, I hope you'll read it and think twice about alleging that autism ratios have been underestimated in women as fact.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
How can ASAN manage autism public policy when they can't manage themselves?
In the late 1930's, as baseball legend Babe Ruth's career as a player was winding down, he expressed a desire to manage the New York Yankees. The team's owner Jacob Rupert replied to the carousing and heavy drinking Ruth, "how can you manage a baseball team when you can't manage yourself?"
This statement rings true for the premiere neurodiversity organization The Autistic Self Advocacy Network as as can be seen in their latest publicly available 2017 990 form spent more than $175,000 than the revenue they took in that year.
In previous blog posts, Ive written that despite the fact Ari Ne'eman, their former CEO, repeatedly criticized the high salaries of the top executives at Autism Speaks, he more than doubled his own salary in a four year period from $40,000 a year to nearly $90,000 a year. His salary increase from 2011 to 2012 of $40,000 to $65,000, a nearly 62% annual increase was nearly double the increase of the organization's revenue.
Because of the organization's deficit spending, it appears they have begun to economize by paying their new CEO Julia Bascom a salary of slightly less than $70,000, a substantial decrease from Ari Ne'eman's 2015 salary of nearly $90,000 a year.
As can also be seen on the form, their net assets decreased from nearly $350,000 at the beginning of 2017 to just over $170,000 at the end of the year, or a slightly lower amount than the red ink they produced in 2017. If their expenses versus revenue in 2018 was comparable to the previous year, they have no assets left, but owe some creditors money.
Is this an organization you'd trust to manage your business, financial affairs, public policy recommendations, etc? A common sense answer would certainly be no. However, if you're a prominent candidate for President of the United States or the federal government the answer which defies rationality is yes. When Jeb Bush ran for president in 2016, he consulted this organization. When Hillary Clinton became the democratic party's nominee in the same year, she also consulted this organization for policy advice and recommendations. As I've written in a previous blog post Ms. Clinton made a variety of dubious autism policy recommendations after winning the democratic party's nomination in 2016. These autism talking points were largely based on a conference call she had with ASAN.
I've also written on occasion that the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee has appointed several neurodiversity, anti treatment breakthrough autistics to make policy recommendations to the federal government while appointing zero pro-treatment anti-neurodiversity autistics, despite the fact that two of them expressed a desire to serve and were turned down. Three of them, Ari Ne'eman, Scott Robertson, and Samantha Crane have had prominent posts within the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network.
ASAN's current autistic representative Samantha Crane, has stated the wandering behaviors of severely autistic children, often resulting in death from accidental drownings and other reasons,are merely problematized by other people, yet are perfectly reasonable. Their current president Julia Bascom apparently believes the reason severely intellectually disabled autistic persons can't write a blog post as well as she can is that they had bad parents who sheltered and infantalized them. Amy Lutz, the mother of a severely autistic individual with a tested IQ of 40 has invited Ms. Bascom to come to her home and teach her son how to write a blog post. So far, Bascom has not accepted.
These are people whom I neither would want to manage my business, finances, or autism policy, though I know those in power disagree.
But will ASAN go bankrupt in a year or two? Is all hope lost for this organization which repeatedly engages in deficit spending? Not necessarily. As can also seen in their 2017 form they have a benefactor with deep pockets. The Foundation for an Open Society donated $180,000 to them in 2017. Though I have not linked to their 2016 form, anyone who cares to peruse it will see they donated $130,000 to them in that year. This is an organization started by well-known billionaire George Soros. Perhaps Mr. Soros will bail them out. The fact that a powerful billionaire supports this philosophy may be the reason the ND movement has made such significant strides in obtaining power within the government as well as private sector organizations such as autism speaks. This does not bode well for those of us who are part of the #autisticdarkweb. Not to mention the fact that there are about 20 of us and maybe 5,000 of them. But the #theautisticdarkweb will continue crusading against this movement we detest so much.
I don't know if ASAN will spend themselves out of existence, but just in case, I hope that Sam Crane had a good bankruptcy course when she attended Harvard Law School. I suspect ASAN may need her to do some pro bono work in that regard.
This statement rings true for the premiere neurodiversity organization The Autistic Self Advocacy Network as as can be seen in their latest publicly available 2017 990 form spent more than $175,000 than the revenue they took in that year.
In previous blog posts, Ive written that despite the fact Ari Ne'eman, their former CEO, repeatedly criticized the high salaries of the top executives at Autism Speaks, he more than doubled his own salary in a four year period from $40,000 a year to nearly $90,000 a year. His salary increase from 2011 to 2012 of $40,000 to $65,000, a nearly 62% annual increase was nearly double the increase of the organization's revenue.
Because of the organization's deficit spending, it appears they have begun to economize by paying their new CEO Julia Bascom a salary of slightly less than $70,000, a substantial decrease from Ari Ne'eman's 2015 salary of nearly $90,000 a year.
As can also be seen on the form, their net assets decreased from nearly $350,000 at the beginning of 2017 to just over $170,000 at the end of the year, or a slightly lower amount than the red ink they produced in 2017. If their expenses versus revenue in 2018 was comparable to the previous year, they have no assets left, but owe some creditors money.
Is this an organization you'd trust to manage your business, financial affairs, public policy recommendations, etc? A common sense answer would certainly be no. However, if you're a prominent candidate for President of the United States or the federal government the answer which defies rationality is yes. When Jeb Bush ran for president in 2016, he consulted this organization. When Hillary Clinton became the democratic party's nominee in the same year, she also consulted this organization for policy advice and recommendations. As I've written in a previous blog post Ms. Clinton made a variety of dubious autism policy recommendations after winning the democratic party's nomination in 2016. These autism talking points were largely based on a conference call she had with ASAN.
I've also written on occasion that the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee has appointed several neurodiversity, anti treatment breakthrough autistics to make policy recommendations to the federal government while appointing zero pro-treatment anti-neurodiversity autistics, despite the fact that two of them expressed a desire to serve and were turned down. Three of them, Ari Ne'eman, Scott Robertson, and Samantha Crane have had prominent posts within the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network.
ASAN's current autistic representative Samantha Crane, has stated the wandering behaviors of severely autistic children, often resulting in death from accidental drownings and other reasons,are merely problematized by other people, yet are perfectly reasonable. Their current president Julia Bascom apparently believes the reason severely intellectually disabled autistic persons can't write a blog post as well as she can is that they had bad parents who sheltered and infantalized them. Amy Lutz, the mother of a severely autistic individual with a tested IQ of 40 has invited Ms. Bascom to come to her home and teach her son how to write a blog post. So far, Bascom has not accepted.
These are people whom I neither would want to manage my business, finances, or autism policy, though I know those in power disagree.
But will ASAN go bankrupt in a year or two? Is all hope lost for this organization which repeatedly engages in deficit spending? Not necessarily. As can also seen in their 2017 form they have a benefactor with deep pockets. The Foundation for an Open Society donated $180,000 to them in 2017. Though I have not linked to their 2016 form, anyone who cares to peruse it will see they donated $130,000 to them in that year. This is an organization started by well-known billionaire George Soros. Perhaps Mr. Soros will bail them out. The fact that a powerful billionaire supports this philosophy may be the reason the ND movement has made such significant strides in obtaining power within the government as well as private sector organizations such as autism speaks. This does not bode well for those of us who are part of the #autisticdarkweb. Not to mention the fact that there are about 20 of us and maybe 5,000 of them. But the #theautisticdarkweb will continue crusading against this movement we detest so much.
I don't know if ASAN will spend themselves out of existence, but just in case, I hope that Sam Crane had a good bankruptcy course when she attended Harvard Law School. I suspect ASAN may need her to do some pro bono work in that regard.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Gadfly published in spectator, a few NDs, including Silberman, mock his disability
In the I've got some good news and bad news to report department, I have, first, some of the best news I've had in a while.
I've been published in Spectator Magazine in the UK. I wrote a short piece discussing the problems with the neurodiversity movement that I've linked to. This is a prestigious magazine and will hopefully help get the word out about some of the problems with the ND movement. It took them six months, but they finally published it.
Along with good news, there is also some bad news to report. My article did not sit well with some of the NDs as can be expected. Some of them have claimed that everything I wrote about ND was wrong and that my article was poorly researched. A few of them have stooped to apparently ridiculing my disability as demonstrated in the following screen shot taken from twitter:
It started with a vague comment I don't understand that neurodiversity proponent Sarah Kurchak made about my article which is not included in the screenshot:
An individual who calls himself autvntg joined in the fun and stated that I have an obsession about fucking and my only bitch about autism was that it was stopping me from being laid.
Even more interesting, famed journalist and best selling author of neurotribes Steve Silberman apparently wrote on twitter that autvntg was absolutely right. Such cruelty among neurodiversity proponents is nothing new. I did not think Silberman could go any lower than he did when he justified the analogy between autism speaks and nazis and eugenics but I suppose nothing about this man should surprise me anymore.
Since Silberman has blocked me on Twitter, I was not aware that he had even responded to Autvng's comment in this matter, until one of my followers brought this to my attention and showed me this screenshot. Since Silberman blocked me, I was not able to embed the actual tweet but only this screenshot. I don't think I can go into Silberman's account and verify that this is real, but I think it's unlikely it's a forgery.
Autvntg and Silberman have apparently not spent much time reading my blog where I talk about my fine motor coordination problems, inability to hold down a job, inability to get things done during the day and stop twiddling (self-stimulation) and the variety of other issues I've written about that have affected me besides celibacy which I do blame on autism.
As some who have followed me over the years know, on occasion, I've responded in an angry fashion when various members of the ND movement cussed at me, insulted my parents and ridiculed my disability. I regret that now and hope from now on I can have a "just the facts ma'am" way of doing things and just report it on this blog or social media, rather than responding in a nasty way. It's not fun to see cruel comments written about me just because I hate this disability and wish there were legitimate treatments and a cure. However, I can take solace in the fact that if I elicited this type of response from Saint Silberman, I must be making an impact.
Along with good news, there is also some bad news to report. My article did not sit well with some of the NDs as can be expected. Some of them have claimed that everything I wrote about ND was wrong and that my article was poorly researched. A few of them have stooped to apparently ridiculing my disability as demonstrated in the following screen shot taken from twitter:
I know I'm supposed to ignore these types, but come on. Someone got paid to basically write "the neurodiversity movement has too many women in it... and also I have suspicions that they might fuck." I can't just leave that alone.
An individual who calls himself autvntg joined in the fun and stated that I have an obsession about fucking and my only bitch about autism was that it was stopping me from being laid.
Even more interesting, famed journalist and best selling author of neurotribes Steve Silberman apparently wrote on twitter that autvntg was absolutely right. Such cruelty among neurodiversity proponents is nothing new. I did not think Silberman could go any lower than he did when he justified the analogy between autism speaks and nazis and eugenics but I suppose nothing about this man should surprise me anymore.
Since Silberman has blocked me on Twitter, I was not aware that he had even responded to Autvng's comment in this matter, until one of my followers brought this to my attention and showed me this screenshot. Since Silberman blocked me, I was not able to embed the actual tweet but only this screenshot. I don't think I can go into Silberman's account and verify that this is real, but I think it's unlikely it's a forgery.
Autvntg and Silberman have apparently not spent much time reading my blog where I talk about my fine motor coordination problems, inability to hold down a job, inability to get things done during the day and stop twiddling (self-stimulation) and the variety of other issues I've written about that have affected me besides celibacy which I do blame on autism.
As some who have followed me over the years know, on occasion, I've responded in an angry fashion when various members of the ND movement cussed at me, insulted my parents and ridiculed my disability. I regret that now and hope from now on I can have a "just the facts ma'am" way of doing things and just report it on this blog or social media, rather than responding in a nasty way. It's not fun to see cruel comments written about me just because I hate this disability and wish there were legitimate treatments and a cure. However, I can take solace in the fact that if I elicited this type of response from Saint Silberman, I must be making an impact.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Finished first draft of "the mu rhythm bluff" screenplay. Now what?
As some people know, nearly six years ago, I wrote and published a novel, "The mu rhythm bluff" about an autistic man who undergoes an experimental treatment to help his autism, but instead it turns him into an expert poker player. I dreamed of it being a commercial success and being made into a movie, an accomplishment that happens with very few novels.
Getting it published by a commercial house was too difficult, so I decided to take the easy route that has become available in the 21st century, self-publishing it on Amazon. It basically went nowhere and I probably sold not much more than 200 copies.
Shortly after I published it, the daughter of a friend of my mom's who worked for the film maker Virgin Produced found the plot of my novel compelling. She asked me if the rights were available and if I could send her a .pdf copy which she would pass around to her colleagues. I happily obliged. She wrote me an email saying 'thank you' and that was the last I heard from her. What would have been a coup for a mediocre self-published novel did not come to fruition.
I would still be interested in having it made into a movie, so I decided to take a break from some other projects still on the burner and write a screenplay version of it. I have now done that. Though it is probably too long and I've written enough material for a two and a half hour movie, so it likely needs significant condensing and reworking. A screenplay is supposed to be about 120 pages in the correct format, which comes out to approximately a two hour movie. (A page equals a minute of film time). With a length of more than 150 pages it is likely too long.
I'm not even sure I got the format right, but I did my best. I've heard about software you can buy that does formatting for you, and there's a good chance I will get it. Next step is to have it printed out so I can have a hard copy.
Self-publishing a book is one thing, but it is probably not feasible for most people to invest in the capital to make it into a movie. If I ever reach the step where it's ready for submission anywhere, I will certainly have an uphill battle getting it onto the big screen. Also, I'm not sure how much I like the title "the mu rhythm bluff". I'd like to call it something else, but I'm dumbstruck as far as thinking of a title is concerned. I'm not sure how marketable a story about poker would be to the big screen. There have been some poker movies, but I think most of them were low budget and did not do well. Rounders with Matt Damon was one that saw the light of day, but was not exactly a box office success. At the time though, No limit Hold 'Em was not as popular as it is now.
After I'd written four novels without success, I decided to try something new. Anyone who has spent any minimal amount of time reading this blog knows that it's mostly devoted to scathing criticism of the neurodiversity movement which I detest. Therefore, I decided I'd write a non-fiction book refuting the tenets of neurodiversity.
I thought it might be easier than fiction, because it did not require the imagination to think of certain things, and I already had a fair amount of material I could recycle from blog posts and other writings. However, I was certainly wrong. My disability made it hard for me to concentrate and apply myself as it always does. The book required an inordinate amount of research and I spent over three years writing it and reading various articles to do the best research to dispute this philosophy. It was made harder by the fact that in the last few years, more and more has been happening in the neurodiversity world and I had to update the manuscript at various points and there are new things that have happened since that I have not included in the book, Baron-Cohen's remarks about comparing pro-cure people to nazis and Klansmen the most prominent.
However, I managed to write a first draft, which I spent time revising and reworking. I had a manuscript, but the question then as I pose it now was 'now what'. It was likely not ready for submission and I did not want to spend $3,000 on an editor I could not afford who might not even be helpful, let alone greatly increasing the chances of having it published anywhere. I did, however, send it along to a few agents who turned it down. I decided to send it to Jessica Kingsley, which admittedly might not be the best fit for an anti-ND book. Not surprisingly, they turned it down.
After this, I decided to take a break from the nonfiction book and write a screenplay version of my self-published novel. Again, I thought this would be an easier project than my last two. After all, I already had the story written out in prose form and a screenplay is less labor intense than a book length manuscript. For the second time, I was dead wrong. I had no familiarity with screenplay format and had to learn from a book and reading examples of screenplays which were made into films that saw the light of day. Also, condensing a 91,000 word novel into an approximately 120 page screenplay format which would be less than a third of the length of the novel. I struggled with this for a time because of my disability, but have finally managed to write a first draft.
I guess the lesson learned in all this is that nothing good comes easily.
So, again, the question is 'now what?' I will continue working on this project, but maybe try to devote time to other endeavors, but I'm not sure how far I will go with it. I realize it is unlikely it will ever be made into a movie, but I can dream can't I?
I may or may not keep readers updated about more work on this screenplay in progress. However, just in case, stay tuned.
Getting it published by a commercial house was too difficult, so I decided to take the easy route that has become available in the 21st century, self-publishing it on Amazon. It basically went nowhere and I probably sold not much more than 200 copies.
Shortly after I published it, the daughter of a friend of my mom's who worked for the film maker Virgin Produced found the plot of my novel compelling. She asked me if the rights were available and if I could send her a .pdf copy which she would pass around to her colleagues. I happily obliged. She wrote me an email saying 'thank you' and that was the last I heard from her. What would have been a coup for a mediocre self-published novel did not come to fruition.
I would still be interested in having it made into a movie, so I decided to take a break from some other projects still on the burner and write a screenplay version of it. I have now done that. Though it is probably too long and I've written enough material for a two and a half hour movie, so it likely needs significant condensing and reworking. A screenplay is supposed to be about 120 pages in the correct format, which comes out to approximately a two hour movie. (A page equals a minute of film time). With a length of more than 150 pages it is likely too long.
I'm not even sure I got the format right, but I did my best. I've heard about software you can buy that does formatting for you, and there's a good chance I will get it. Next step is to have it printed out so I can have a hard copy.
Self-publishing a book is one thing, but it is probably not feasible for most people to invest in the capital to make it into a movie. If I ever reach the step where it's ready for submission anywhere, I will certainly have an uphill battle getting it onto the big screen. Also, I'm not sure how much I like the title "the mu rhythm bluff". I'd like to call it something else, but I'm dumbstruck as far as thinking of a title is concerned. I'm not sure how marketable a story about poker would be to the big screen. There have been some poker movies, but I think most of them were low budget and did not do well. Rounders with Matt Damon was one that saw the light of day, but was not exactly a box office success. At the time though, No limit Hold 'Em was not as popular as it is now.
After I'd written four novels without success, I decided to try something new. Anyone who has spent any minimal amount of time reading this blog knows that it's mostly devoted to scathing criticism of the neurodiversity movement which I detest. Therefore, I decided I'd write a non-fiction book refuting the tenets of neurodiversity.
I thought it might be easier than fiction, because it did not require the imagination to think of certain things, and I already had a fair amount of material I could recycle from blog posts and other writings. However, I was certainly wrong. My disability made it hard for me to concentrate and apply myself as it always does. The book required an inordinate amount of research and I spent over three years writing it and reading various articles to do the best research to dispute this philosophy. It was made harder by the fact that in the last few years, more and more has been happening in the neurodiversity world and I had to update the manuscript at various points and there are new things that have happened since that I have not included in the book, Baron-Cohen's remarks about comparing pro-cure people to nazis and Klansmen the most prominent.
However, I managed to write a first draft, which I spent time revising and reworking. I had a manuscript, but the question then as I pose it now was 'now what'. It was likely not ready for submission and I did not want to spend $3,000 on an editor I could not afford who might not even be helpful, let alone greatly increasing the chances of having it published anywhere. I did, however, send it along to a few agents who turned it down. I decided to send it to Jessica Kingsley, which admittedly might not be the best fit for an anti-ND book. Not surprisingly, they turned it down.
After this, I decided to take a break from the nonfiction book and write a screenplay version of my self-published novel. Again, I thought this would be an easier project than my last two. After all, I already had the story written out in prose form and a screenplay is less labor intense than a book length manuscript. For the second time, I was dead wrong. I had no familiarity with screenplay format and had to learn from a book and reading examples of screenplays which were made into films that saw the light of day. Also, condensing a 91,000 word novel into an approximately 120 page screenplay format which would be less than a third of the length of the novel. I struggled with this for a time because of my disability, but have finally managed to write a first draft.
I guess the lesson learned in all this is that nothing good comes easily.
So, again, the question is 'now what?' I will continue working on this project, but maybe try to devote time to other endeavors, but I'm not sure how far I will go with it. I realize it is unlikely it will ever be made into a movie, but I can dream can't I?
I may or may not keep readers updated about more work on this screenplay in progress. However, just in case, stay tuned.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Autism Speaks on the record
As many people know, autism speaks dropped the word 'cure' from their mission statement about two years ago. Until today. I was unaware they'd given an explanation for this. They address this issue and other statements in the link I gave in a statement entitled "for the record".
They state that there are multiple autisms and no single cause. Ergo, there can't be a single cure for autism. They state science has proved there could never be one cure for all autisms, but they offer no proof for this speculation. By some convoluted logic that escapes me, they claim because there is no single cure for autism that we should not look to cure anyone's autism at all, even if this were possible. Why can't we just find a cure for each and every individual that is autistic?
They also dropped the words 'global health crisis' from their mission statements. Does this mean because there are different autisms, some of them are global health crises and others are not? Why wouldn't each and every single instance of autism, not be a global health crisis, so why would they drop these words as well?
In contrasting their past mission statement with their present one, it would seem they dropped any indication of autism being any sort of bad thing. Just what the anti-cure, pro-neurodiversity people would want them to do.
It's also an interesting coincidence that autism speaks changed their mission statement shortly after the Los Angeles times published a scathing op ed piece about them in the los angeles times, written by neurodiversity advocate and writer, Steve Silberman. This is also when they put two pro-neurodiversity anti-cure autistic self-advocates, Stephen Shore and Valerie Paradiz, on the board amidst complaints of not having any autistic people on their board of directors.
It's likely the real reason for dropping the word 'cure' from their mission statement is they wanted to appease noisy neurodiversity protesters and they were also worried about their bottom line.
They also stated in their 'for the record' that they had these two autistic members on their board. Valerie Paradiz was not diagnosed until about the age of 40, many years after her own son was diagnosed, despite the fact she hung out her shingle as an autism consultant, and advertised herself as some sort of autism expert. It's strange she would not recognize the disorder in herself for so long.
They say they employ a variety of autistics in various positions in their organization, but there is no transparency in who these people are and in what capacity they've served autism speaks. A couple of persons involved with autism speaks have told me AS does not want to violate these individuals' privacy. This is despite the fact that they found persons to interview for their autism in the workplace video, publicly showing autistics in a variety of jobs. This was apparently done to encourage employers to hire autistic people, yet they did not comment on what they did in their own organization.
Another statement in this also caught my eye:
Autism Speaks supports everyone affected by autism and recognizes the diverse viewpoints within our community. By fostering acceptance and understanding of autism, our goal is for all people on spectrum, no matter how they self-identify, to be appreciated for who they are and for the contributions they can make to society.
I'm curious as to what AS means by the statement no matter how they self-identify. Does this mean that autism speaks supports self-diagnosis and anyone calling themselves autistic, despite lack of clinical symptoms, has a viewpoint they will support?
Another point to ponder is if they support everyone affected by autism's point of view, why would they put two anti-cure pro-neurodiversity individuals on their board and not the pro-cure pro-treatment Roger Kulp who contacted them and wanted to make a contribution, but who was ignored completely?
One of their talking points was that they wanted ASD people to be the best they could be-with autism. So this means they want people to remain autistic and handicapped. I want people to be the best they can be WITHOUT autism. They can never be the best they can be with autism.
They've also stated in this piece that they oppose aversives as a treatment for autism and do not support or endorse organizations that use them. However, they have allowed the judge Rottenberg center to advertise their services at their walks. The judge Rottenberg Center has been notorious for being the main practitioner of aversive therapy for autistic persons. Matthew Israel, its founder, was expelled from the Autism Society of America for practicing clinical psychology without a license. It's possible AS allowed the JRC to advertise at their walks before they wrote 'for the record' and then stopped this practice, but otherwise, this would be an outright fabrication on AS' part.
Based on these talking points, is Autism Speaks a charity worth supporting and donating to? Autism's Gadfly does not think so.
They state that there are multiple autisms and no single cause. Ergo, there can't be a single cure for autism. They state science has proved there could never be one cure for all autisms, but they offer no proof for this speculation. By some convoluted logic that escapes me, they claim because there is no single cure for autism that we should not look to cure anyone's autism at all, even if this were possible. Why can't we just find a cure for each and every individual that is autistic?
They also dropped the words 'global health crisis' from their mission statements. Does this mean because there are different autisms, some of them are global health crises and others are not? Why wouldn't each and every single instance of autism, not be a global health crisis, so why would they drop these words as well?
In contrasting their past mission statement with their present one, it would seem they dropped any indication of autism being any sort of bad thing. Just what the anti-cure, pro-neurodiversity people would want them to do.
It's also an interesting coincidence that autism speaks changed their mission statement shortly after the Los Angeles times published a scathing op ed piece about them in the los angeles times, written by neurodiversity advocate and writer, Steve Silberman. This is also when they put two pro-neurodiversity anti-cure autistic self-advocates, Stephen Shore and Valerie Paradiz, on the board amidst complaints of not having any autistic people on their board of directors.
It's likely the real reason for dropping the word 'cure' from their mission statement is they wanted to appease noisy neurodiversity protesters and they were also worried about their bottom line.
They also stated in their 'for the record' that they had these two autistic members on their board. Valerie Paradiz was not diagnosed until about the age of 40, many years after her own son was diagnosed, despite the fact she hung out her shingle as an autism consultant, and advertised herself as some sort of autism expert. It's strange she would not recognize the disorder in herself for so long.
They say they employ a variety of autistics in various positions in their organization, but there is no transparency in who these people are and in what capacity they've served autism speaks. A couple of persons involved with autism speaks have told me AS does not want to violate these individuals' privacy. This is despite the fact that they found persons to interview for their autism in the workplace video, publicly showing autistics in a variety of jobs. This was apparently done to encourage employers to hire autistic people, yet they did not comment on what they did in their own organization.
Another statement in this also caught my eye:
Autism Speaks supports everyone affected by autism and recognizes the diverse viewpoints within our community. By fostering acceptance and understanding of autism, our goal is for all people on spectrum, no matter how they self-identify, to be appreciated for who they are and for the contributions they can make to society.
I'm curious as to what AS means by the statement no matter how they self-identify. Does this mean that autism speaks supports self-diagnosis and anyone calling themselves autistic, despite lack of clinical symptoms, has a viewpoint they will support?
Another point to ponder is if they support everyone affected by autism's point of view, why would they put two anti-cure pro-neurodiversity individuals on their board and not the pro-cure pro-treatment Roger Kulp who contacted them and wanted to make a contribution, but who was ignored completely?
One of their talking points was that they wanted ASD people to be the best they could be-with autism. So this means they want people to remain autistic and handicapped. I want people to be the best they can be WITHOUT autism. They can never be the best they can be with autism.
They've also stated in this piece that they oppose aversives as a treatment for autism and do not support or endorse organizations that use them. However, they have allowed the judge Rottenberg center to advertise their services at their walks. The judge Rottenberg Center has been notorious for being the main practitioner of aversive therapy for autistic persons. Matthew Israel, its founder, was expelled from the Autism Society of America for practicing clinical psychology without a license. It's possible AS allowed the JRC to advertise at their walks before they wrote 'for the record' and then stopped this practice, but otherwise, this would be an outright fabrication on AS' part.
Based on these talking points, is Autism Speaks a charity worth supporting and donating to? Autism's Gadfly does not think so.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Manuel and Emily Casanova's New Autism Book
Husband and wife researchers Manuel and Emily Casanova have recently come out with a new book about the current state of the art about knowledge of the science of autism, titled "Defining Autism".
Manuel Casanova is a neuropathologist, known for his discovery of abnormalities of minicolumns in the brain having a relationship to the etiology of autism. He's also experimented in transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for autism. He's unique to autism scientists in that he has a blog, cortical chauvinism in which he does a good job of explaining the results of very technical scientific research (his own and others)to laypersons such as myself.
His wife, Emily, a Ph.D. scientist, also has a blog "science over cuppa" in which she explains scientific research. I don't know as much about Emily and her blog, so I won't comment on that further.
I met Manuel some years ago at a conference in Long Beach and had a brief conversation with him, after he gave his presentation. He spoke of minicolumns, inhibitory neurotransmitters, and the broken shower curtain effect that a lack of inhibitory neurotransmission could cause that would result in problems in an autistic brain. I knew that norepinephrine was an inhibitory neurotransmitter existing in purkinje cells which have been implicated in autism. I asked him if norepinephrine could be involved in the etiology of autism and if that related to the problems with autistic minicolumns. He replied that the neurotransmitter in question that was deficient was GABA, also an inhibitory neurotransmitter. Purkinje cells in the brain also use these as well as GABA.
Shortly afterward, Dr. C started his blog, cortical chauvinism. I was one of the first persons to comment on it. I asked him if he remembered me from our meeting in Long Beach, not expecting he would as we only spoke a moment and he did not know of me before. I was pleasantly surprised when he said he remembered me. I commented on his blog not infrequently and we developed a sort of internet friendship. This resulted in his plugging my novel, "The Mu Rhythm Bluff", asking me for an autobiographical post which he published, as well as republishing posts I'd written about the controversial book "neurotribes" I'd written on autism's gadfly. I hope to someday again meet Manuel in person.
There has been a dearth of books explaining the science of autism to the layperson. Emily and Manuel have done a reasonably good job of closing that gap with their new book.
The first two chapters are written by Manuel. The first deals with a historical overview of how Leo Kanner discovered, wrote about and promoted autism. It also deals with Bernard Rimland's influence. The second does a good job of summarizing an overview of MC's research on minicolumns and work in transcranial magnetic stimulation. He also describes blatant pathologies in postmortem brains, such as heterotopias, which negates the neurodiversity dictum that an autistic brain is not an abnormal brain, but just an alternatively wired brain--something which unfortunately given today's state of the art is probably not possible to prove in living tissues. He neglects to cite a lot of the problems in his TMS research such as lack of random assignment of individuals as well as the problems of using a control group of sham TMS treatments which research subjects would be able to differentiate from the real deal, and are a formidable problem in evaluating this as a potential autism treatment.
The subsequent chapters are written by Emily. One details what is known about the genetics of autism and how certain mutations are involved, both inherited and spontaneous mutations. She discusses the twin data in autism genetic studies. One thing she neglects to discuss are the twin studies, such as the one done by Hall et. al. in California showing a higher autism concordance in fraternal twins than in non-twin siblings. This suggests autism is at least partially environmentally mediated. A discussion of this study as well as a few others along this line would have made the book better.
Next, Emily discusses known environmental components associated with autism in the past such as thalidomide and CMV. These also provide evidence against the neurodiversity dictum that autism is solely a natural genetic variation.
The book also discusses autism regression.
It also touches upon oxidative stress and how free radical atoms can result in brain problems in autism and other disorders, as well as mitochondrial influences in autism. Interestingly, it cites a reference showing that women produce far more anti-oxidants than men, leading to a four fold decrease in mutations. Does that four fold difference sound familiar?
One of the most interesting portions of the book is a discussion of the neural mechanisms that can cause self-stimulatory behaviors in autistics, such as my twiddling. This involves an imbalance in areas of the basal ganglia, but I won't discuss further as it might be a spoiler for anyone who wants to read the book.
It also discusses savantism and intellectual disabilities.
The book does fall short in a few areas. There is no discussion of Dr. C's (Manuel's) research in gamma resynchronization, and his attempt to integrate TMS with neurofeedback.
The book also goes into arcane areas not pertinent to autism as a lead-in to introduce authors to subjects of autism. It would be better if the authors could cut to the chase and get into the more relevant topics more quickly. Also, there was a fair amount of footnoting, which distracted from the regular text. However, this is just a preference of mine as I don't like footnoted books and articles.
Though the book provides evidence for the validity of high male to female autism sex ratios, it does touch on diagnostic bias without giving much evidence. Similarly, the book talks about assortative mating without much evidence for its validity.
Other than these minor flaws. It's one of the best books on autism ever written in my opinion and I highly recommend it.
Manuel Casanova is a neuropathologist, known for his discovery of abnormalities of minicolumns in the brain having a relationship to the etiology of autism. He's also experimented in transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for autism. He's unique to autism scientists in that he has a blog, cortical chauvinism in which he does a good job of explaining the results of very technical scientific research (his own and others)to laypersons such as myself.
His wife, Emily, a Ph.D. scientist, also has a blog "science over cuppa" in which she explains scientific research. I don't know as much about Emily and her blog, so I won't comment on that further.
I met Manuel some years ago at a conference in Long Beach and had a brief conversation with him, after he gave his presentation. He spoke of minicolumns, inhibitory neurotransmitters, and the broken shower curtain effect that a lack of inhibitory neurotransmission could cause that would result in problems in an autistic brain. I knew that norepinephrine was an inhibitory neurotransmitter existing in purkinje cells which have been implicated in autism. I asked him if norepinephrine could be involved in the etiology of autism and if that related to the problems with autistic minicolumns. He replied that the neurotransmitter in question that was deficient was GABA, also an inhibitory neurotransmitter. Purkinje cells in the brain also use these as well as GABA.
Shortly afterward, Dr. C started his blog, cortical chauvinism. I was one of the first persons to comment on it. I asked him if he remembered me from our meeting in Long Beach, not expecting he would as we only spoke a moment and he did not know of me before. I was pleasantly surprised when he said he remembered me. I commented on his blog not infrequently and we developed a sort of internet friendship. This resulted in his plugging my novel, "The Mu Rhythm Bluff", asking me for an autobiographical post which he published, as well as republishing posts I'd written about the controversial book "neurotribes" I'd written on autism's gadfly. I hope to someday again meet Manuel in person.
There has been a dearth of books explaining the science of autism to the layperson. Emily and Manuel have done a reasonably good job of closing that gap with their new book.
The first two chapters are written by Manuel. The first deals with a historical overview of how Leo Kanner discovered, wrote about and promoted autism. It also deals with Bernard Rimland's influence. The second does a good job of summarizing an overview of MC's research on minicolumns and work in transcranial magnetic stimulation. He also describes blatant pathologies in postmortem brains, such as heterotopias, which negates the neurodiversity dictum that an autistic brain is not an abnormal brain, but just an alternatively wired brain--something which unfortunately given today's state of the art is probably not possible to prove in living tissues. He neglects to cite a lot of the problems in his TMS research such as lack of random assignment of individuals as well as the problems of using a control group of sham TMS treatments which research subjects would be able to differentiate from the real deal, and are a formidable problem in evaluating this as a potential autism treatment.
The subsequent chapters are written by Emily. One details what is known about the genetics of autism and how certain mutations are involved, both inherited and spontaneous mutations. She discusses the twin data in autism genetic studies. One thing she neglects to discuss are the twin studies, such as the one done by Hall et. al. in California showing a higher autism concordance in fraternal twins than in non-twin siblings. This suggests autism is at least partially environmentally mediated. A discussion of this study as well as a few others along this line would have made the book better.
Next, Emily discusses known environmental components associated with autism in the past such as thalidomide and CMV. These also provide evidence against the neurodiversity dictum that autism is solely a natural genetic variation.
The book also discusses autism regression.
It also touches upon oxidative stress and how free radical atoms can result in brain problems in autism and other disorders, as well as mitochondrial influences in autism. Interestingly, it cites a reference showing that women produce far more anti-oxidants than men, leading to a four fold decrease in mutations. Does that four fold difference sound familiar?
One of the most interesting portions of the book is a discussion of the neural mechanisms that can cause self-stimulatory behaviors in autistics, such as my twiddling. This involves an imbalance in areas of the basal ganglia, but I won't discuss further as it might be a spoiler for anyone who wants to read the book.
It also discusses savantism and intellectual disabilities.
The book does fall short in a few areas. There is no discussion of Dr. C's (Manuel's) research in gamma resynchronization, and his attempt to integrate TMS with neurofeedback.
The book also goes into arcane areas not pertinent to autism as a lead-in to introduce authors to subjects of autism. It would be better if the authors could cut to the chase and get into the more relevant topics more quickly. Also, there was a fair amount of footnoting, which distracted from the regular text. However, this is just a preference of mine as I don't like footnoted books and articles.
Though the book provides evidence for the validity of high male to female autism sex ratios, it does touch on diagnostic bias without giving much evidence. Similarly, the book talks about assortative mating without much evidence for its validity.
Other than these minor flaws. It's one of the best books on autism ever written in my opinion and I highly recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
