One of the proposals that some neurodiversity advocates make in terms of what they believe to be necessary changes to looking at autism in a different light is rewriting the DSMIV-R, which I think soon will be the DSMV if it is not already. The proposal is to eliminate autism entirely as a category in the psychiatric manual. They believe it is insulting to pathologize autism in any way. They use the analogy of homosexuality being considered a disorder in the 1960s and then being removed from the DSM. I believe the analogies between the two are poor. Homosexuality certainly does not cause the individual to be dysfunctional in society the way autism does. I can't believe that even the staunchest neurodiversity advocate would claim that any autistic could function normally in society. Be that as it may, perhaps changing the DSM in some other ways might not be such a bad idea.
I was reading Michelle Dawson's TMOB comment board and was intrigued by the following comment from Michelle:
E.g., Dr Shattuck trots out the common and stupefying premise that when autistics are bullied, this is evidence of autistics'--not bullies'-- inappropriate social behaviour. I nearly turned the radio off.Later Dr Shattuck also states that there should be criminal penalties for those who deliberately take advantage of developmentally disabled people. This is interesting, but there is no suggestion that bullies and harassers (etc.) and others who take advantage of autistics, etc., need treatment for their grossly inappropriate social behaviour. Instead, Dr Shattuck wants a lot of treatment for autistics who get bullied and taken advantage of, presumably so we become less autistic or not autistic at all (this being the purpose of autism treatment).
Though Michelle and I have had our differences in the past and have locked figurative horns on some matters, I believe in this instance Michelle has some valid points. However the argument Michelle seems to be espousing is treatment of autistics and non-treatment of bullies versus treatment of bullies and non-treatment of autistics. However, why can't there be a third scenario where not only is autism considered a pathologic condition but so is bullying amongst children. I don't believe there is any reason there has to be mutual exclusion from considering either one condition or the other pathologic. One of the arguments against mainstreaming special education students is that they will be picked on by bullies in mainstream schools. Of course it is never recommended that the bully be disciplined or sent to a special education school. Also, people who espouse this argument have probably never been special education students themselves and don't know the same things that this eight year veteran of special education knows, that special ed students do bully each other at times.
So my suggestion is this. Not only do we keep autism as a DSM category but add bullying as well. Though I am not sure what treatment would turn a bullier into a non-bully, assuming there was one and the criminal charges that Dr. Shattuck recommends, one of the conditions of sentencing could be that a bully is referred to a psychiatrist or appropriate doctor for treatment under the DSM. Though such a treatment may be pie-in-the-sky dreaming, I believe it would be a good idea to add bullying into the DSM category so that this behavior can be considered pathologic and the consciousness of person's would be raised in terms of the problems that autistic children who are often bullied both in and out of mainstream schools have to endure.
I have had to endure tremendous bullying, have been beaten up and even had my car vandalized as a high school teen. Of course not all kids are like this. There is no question that the most extreme bullies had some sort of psychiatric issues and would need help if such help were available. Just as people arrested for DUI have to sometimes undergo counseling as a condition for their probation perhaps bullies could also.
This does not mean of course that autistic persons should not be made less autistic or even non-autistic if the option is available. Autism presents many challenges for the person outside of having to contend with bullies.
Another needed change to the DSM in my opinion is either eliminating Asperger's syndrome alltogether or at least making it its own separate category and not considering it as part of the autism spectrum. The Autism Self Advocacy Network is not called the Asperger's Self Advocacy Network. Ari Neeman, the young stalwart who runs this organization never had a speech delay, one of the DSM indicators of autism. He was not diagnosed with Asperger's until he was 12. He is now 20 years old. At the time Ari was 7, he would not have been diagnosable as autistic under the criteria which was in existence at that time. This is probably also true for many other neurodiversity advocates who in some instance seem to want to speak for all autistics and protest a non-existent cure for autism. I had a speech delay before the age of 3, so I guess according to DSM criteria I would be considered autistic rather than asperger's, though I suppose I have some commonality with Asperger's in that I am clumsy and score relatively well on the verbal portion of Wechsler IQ tests and poorly on the performance part. The inclusion of Asperger's also gives the false perception that 1 out of 150 persons in the U.S. have conditions that are in any way analogous to people on the lower end of the spectrum (this could even include myself in comparison to many if not most neurodiversity adherents who claim to be autistic).
For all of these reasons I recommend changing the DSM as soon as possible. Include bullying, either exclude Asperger's or make it separate from autism.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
could Cesarean sections be partly responsible for autism increse
Today I was reading an article in the Los Angeles times on how Cesarean sections are on the rise due to ob/gyn doctors being fearful of lawsuits and sometimes doing them unnecessarily. This has lead to premature delivery of babies who might be vulnerable to autism or other types of developmental disabilies. Don't get me wrong. I still believe that most of the perceived increase in autism is due to changes in special education law which have allowed persons to qualify for services such as ABA. This is in addition to changes in diagnostic criteria and the increasing recognition that persons of normal intelligence can be autistic.
However, no one really knows for sure if more persons with autism spectrum disorders are being born then were 15 or more years ago. As there is no real biologic marker to determine whether or not someone is autistic it is mostly just guesswork. I believe it could be possible that there is a slight increase in autistic children being born, though not the huge increases that SAFE MINDS and other vaccine causes autism groups claim. One of the theories is that at least some of the cause of autism is due to increased paternal age of fathers of autistic children. I know that some people who blog on the internet such as Harold Doherty and John Best had their autistic sons when in their 40s. Also, ironically enough Donald Trump who recently became a father at age 61 said that he was going to not have his offspring receive a multitude of vaccinations at once to minimize the chances of the baby becoming autistic.
It seems to me that premature birth is one of the factors that could cause a person to become autistic. Another irony is that Sally Bernard, one of the leaders of the vaccines causes autism movement had an autistic son who was a triplet, born prematurely. It is much more likely this is what caused her son's autism than mercury in vaccines. It seems that there might be a temporal relationship between cesarean sections and the rate of autism increases. Of course with my problems that won't be easy to research and I don't know if I am going to pursue that avenue. I have shown, I believe, there is no temporal relationship between autism and vaccines in my article "Autism and Thimerosal is there really a correlation?" http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/thimerosal.html However, there is still a temporal relationship between changes in special education law and the commercialization of ABA treatments with their pie-in-the-sky claims of normalcy for nearly 50% of autistic children who undergo the 40 hour per week paradigm starting before they are age 36 months. I suspect, as I said before that this is a factor.
However, the incidence of Cesarean sections and how much they have increased and whether or not this is a factor in some autism deserves some exploration. It could be the basis for scientific research into the etiology of at least some autism also.
However, no one really knows for sure if more persons with autism spectrum disorders are being born then were 15 or more years ago. As there is no real biologic marker to determine whether or not someone is autistic it is mostly just guesswork. I believe it could be possible that there is a slight increase in autistic children being born, though not the huge increases that SAFE MINDS and other vaccine causes autism groups claim. One of the theories is that at least some of the cause of autism is due to increased paternal age of fathers of autistic children. I know that some people who blog on the internet such as Harold Doherty and John Best had their autistic sons when in their 40s. Also, ironically enough Donald Trump who recently became a father at age 61 said that he was going to not have his offspring receive a multitude of vaccinations at once to minimize the chances of the baby becoming autistic.
It seems to me that premature birth is one of the factors that could cause a person to become autistic. Another irony is that Sally Bernard, one of the leaders of the vaccines causes autism movement had an autistic son who was a triplet, born prematurely. It is much more likely this is what caused her son's autism than mercury in vaccines. It seems that there might be a temporal relationship between cesarean sections and the rate of autism increases. Of course with my problems that won't be easy to research and I don't know if I am going to pursue that avenue. I have shown, I believe, there is no temporal relationship between autism and vaccines in my article "Autism and Thimerosal is there really a correlation?" http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/thimerosal.html However, there is still a temporal relationship between changes in special education law and the commercialization of ABA treatments with their pie-in-the-sky claims of normalcy for nearly 50% of autistic children who undergo the 40 hour per week paradigm starting before they are age 36 months. I suspect, as I said before that this is a factor.
However, the incidence of Cesarean sections and how much they have increased and whether or not this is a factor in some autism deserves some exploration. It could be the basis for scientific research into the etiology of at least some autism also.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
would you like some cheese with that whine department
I recently posted a comment on the left brain/right brain blog in response to blogger Kevin Leitch's comments that though he might not stand in the way of a cure, he was not sure it would be necessary as there might be some alternatives. As is so typical of those involved in the neurodiversity movement, he neglected to give any specifics. In response, I asked what alternatives are there. The only person who responded to my question and gave any answer was Joseph of the natural variation blog. He stated that we should study the successful adult outcomes and see what influenced them. I did respond to him, but one point that I did not but should have made in my response was that this might be a legitimate thing to do, however, if we could find what influenced the adult outcomes and modify the environment or diet or whatever factors might lead to these outcomes assuming they exist(which is questionable) and the person was able to live a normal (or typical for those who prefer that word) life why would they not be cured? I also asked that question of Kevin in my original post. It seems to me that Joe and Kev just want to have it both ways, which is not an uncommon phenomena for those who preach neurodiversity.
Another person diagnosed me with clinical depression and suggested that i get some sort of treatment for this. I guess it is inconceivable to some that a person can be depressed because their autistic symptoms have so greatly impaired their life and made it so difficult.
One of the most, in my opinion, interesting responses was from someone who calls herself alyric who accused me of making one big whine and saying my whining does not accomplish anything.
If anyone holds the records for the most non-productive whining in the world it is those who are involved with neurodiversity. They take umbrage to someone using a ransom note metaphor concerning autism and spend their time complaining about something so silly and quashing this, pressuring the New York University person to pull these ads. They whine about a non-existent cure which even if it did exist, no one is proposing they be forced to take it against their will. It does not seem to occur to them these parents who wish their children could be cured have no interest in curing them, just their own children. They whine about organizations like autism speaks accusing them of bigotry and genocide. They whine about the direction tax payer funded research should take. Interestingly enough, I am pretty sure two of these whiners, Michelle Dawson and Mike Stanton have never paid a dime in American taxes yet feel they should have a say on how U.S. tax dollar research should be funded.
They whine about the murders of autistic children like katie McCarron and blame anyone who wants a cure for those murders. Yet they shed no tears for children like Ashley Brock who recently drowned most likely due to being autistic. They shed no tears for the boy who was killed by a train in North Carolina due to being too autistic to know the danger.
They whine about parents saying autism is any sort of deficiency or pathology or bad thing.
They attempt to engage in petty censorship claiming that publically funded usenet newsgroups are "autistic friendly space" saying anyone who posts anything negative about autism is violating them. Steve D., one neurodiversity activitist, complains when someone posts a link to my article "neurodiversity just say no" in the autism speaks newsgroups because he is offended by it. Yet it is okay for them to post all sorts of things that undoubtedly offend other people.
All I can say to Alyric and other neurodiversity proponents is, "would you like some cheese with that whine?"
Another person diagnosed me with clinical depression and suggested that i get some sort of treatment for this. I guess it is inconceivable to some that a person can be depressed because their autistic symptoms have so greatly impaired their life and made it so difficult.
One of the most, in my opinion, interesting responses was from someone who calls herself alyric who accused me of making one big whine and saying my whining does not accomplish anything.
If anyone holds the records for the most non-productive whining in the world it is those who are involved with neurodiversity. They take umbrage to someone using a ransom note metaphor concerning autism and spend their time complaining about something so silly and quashing this, pressuring the New York University person to pull these ads. They whine about a non-existent cure which even if it did exist, no one is proposing they be forced to take it against their will. It does not seem to occur to them these parents who wish their children could be cured have no interest in curing them, just their own children. They whine about organizations like autism speaks accusing them of bigotry and genocide. They whine about the direction tax payer funded research should take. Interestingly enough, I am pretty sure two of these whiners, Michelle Dawson and Mike Stanton have never paid a dime in American taxes yet feel they should have a say on how U.S. tax dollar research should be funded.
They whine about the murders of autistic children like katie McCarron and blame anyone who wants a cure for those murders. Yet they shed no tears for children like Ashley Brock who recently drowned most likely due to being autistic. They shed no tears for the boy who was killed by a train in North Carolina due to being too autistic to know the danger.
They whine about parents saying autism is any sort of deficiency or pathology or bad thing.
They attempt to engage in petty censorship claiming that publically funded usenet newsgroups are "autistic friendly space" saying anyone who posts anything negative about autism is violating them. Steve D., one neurodiversity activitist, complains when someone posts a link to my article "neurodiversity just say no" in the autism speaks newsgroups because he is offended by it. Yet it is okay for them to post all sorts of things that undoubtedly offend other people.
All I can say to Alyric and other neurodiversity proponents is, "would you like some cheese with that whine?"
Monday, May 26, 2008
Neurodiversity article in New York Magazine
An article about neurodiversity has just come out in New York magazine. I just finished reading it and I am pleased to announce that yours truly got a brief mention in the article and author Andrew Solomon quoted a sentence or two from my article "Neurodiversity: Just Say No" It was an interesting article and fairly well-balanced, though seems a slight bias towards the ND side of the story.
I was not mentioned until close to the end of the article. so wondered if someone whose diagnosis would be autism (even high functioning) rather than asperger's syndrome would be mentioned. I also wondered if any mention would be made of autistic adults who have tried to make a living and the problems that so often happens to those of us on the spectrum who are too disabled to be continually "substantially and gainfully employed". The reason I was concerned about this were that Mr. Solomon's shining examples were Ari neeman and Alex Plank, two individuals diagnosed with asperger's syndrome rather than autism, neither of whom, at least in my book, should be considered an adult. They are both under 21, are still developing college students and are not yet old or mature enough to have attempted to go out in the world and make a living at a serious job, so the problems that many of us on the spectrum have of holding down a job are really an abstraction to these two. Once they finish school and are adults, they will have to think about supporting themselves, which might be difficult for them if their asperger's significantly impairs them. It is not unthinkable, they might come around to my viewpoint, once they understand the real problems autistic adults face. I seem to remember also both of these individuals were diagnosed quite late in childhood. I also wonder if Alex Plank has ever been in a special education setting. I have been told by Michelle Dawson and Ari himself that he has been a special ed student. So I am still waiting to hear about someone who is an adult, gone out in the world tried to make a living has an ASD disorder that involved a speech delay and was a special ed student as I was who is a neurodiversity proponent.
I was also reading the left brain/right brain blog's author Keven Leitch, who now seems to have come around to the prospect that a cure might not be so bad, but might actually not be necessary, though he gives no alternatives to a cure that might help an autistic. But Kev seems to say, he would not get in the way of a cure if there could be a cure. A long way from the "we don't need no stinkin' cure" motto of the autism hub that they apparently changed for some mysterious reason to something about acceptance of autistic people.
Kathleen Seidel seems to say that she is not opposed to treatments being found for people with autism so she does not seem to think that autism is not all joy and beauty, so this may be another example of one neurodiversity proponent trying to have it both ways.
Alex Plank, does make some sense in that he says that since there is no cure there is no point in arguing about it, but wants something done for the autistic people on this planet now whom with his alleged asperger's diagnosis i don't think he has much in common with. But we also have to think about the lives of children who will be born in the future and what we can do to ensure they will not have to suffer from all the hardships an ASD can bring. This is why the work of autism speaks and other organizations are so important.
On the subject of autism speaks, i was very disappointed to again read Ari Neeman as being quoted that autism speaks is complicit in the murders of autistic children just because of one dumb remark one person associated with the organization made in a video. It is unfortunate this kind of demagoguery has to be used by these people to justify their otherwise unjustifiable position.
Lenny Schaefer was saying don't write about these people, we don't need to give them publicity. Though I find neurodiversity as distasteful as Mr. Schaefer (though I don't agree with him on vaccines causing autism and the likelihood of a true rise of autism), I don't believe he is correct on this. Neurodiversity is no less of a fringe movement than people who believe the earth is flat and at some point, when they start getting more publicity people will see how silly their position truly is. I hope then at some point that parents of newly diagnosed children will reject this movement. I hope this will motivate people to find medical solutions to autism.
I realize that Plank's point about we want something done for autistics who are here now may be well taken. It is true, that the scientific research that autism speaks funds may not provide beneficial treatments let alone cures for people with autism in our lifetime, though as I said in the previous paragraph we do have to think about future generations. However, what can be done for the autistic persons on this planet now? I wish I had some easy quick fix answers but I don't. However, I don't believe that ABA, poorly thought out laws like the IDEA and the IEPs (Idiotic Expectations Programs) are any answer. I also don't believe that acceptance, preaching neurodiversity provide any answers to autism either. Also societal acceptance certainly provide no answer to nonspeaking head-banging autistics whose problems neurodiversity proponents won't seem to acknowledge. Therefore I hope that people will reject this way of thinking. I also hope that pieces like those published in the New York Magazine will allow those to see for themselves what a misguided movement this is and will lead people to reject it.
I was not mentioned until close to the end of the article. so wondered if someone whose diagnosis would be autism (even high functioning) rather than asperger's syndrome would be mentioned. I also wondered if any mention would be made of autistic adults who have tried to make a living and the problems that so often happens to those of us on the spectrum who are too disabled to be continually "substantially and gainfully employed". The reason I was concerned about this were that Mr. Solomon's shining examples were Ari neeman and Alex Plank, two individuals diagnosed with asperger's syndrome rather than autism, neither of whom, at least in my book, should be considered an adult. They are both under 21, are still developing college students and are not yet old or mature enough to have attempted to go out in the world and make a living at a serious job, so the problems that many of us on the spectrum have of holding down a job are really an abstraction to these two. Once they finish school and are adults, they will have to think about supporting themselves, which might be difficult for them if their asperger's significantly impairs them. It is not unthinkable, they might come around to my viewpoint, once they understand the real problems autistic adults face. I seem to remember also both of these individuals were diagnosed quite late in childhood. I also wonder if Alex Plank has ever been in a special education setting. I have been told by Michelle Dawson and Ari himself that he has been a special ed student. So I am still waiting to hear about someone who is an adult, gone out in the world tried to make a living has an ASD disorder that involved a speech delay and was a special ed student as I was who is a neurodiversity proponent.
I was also reading the left brain/right brain blog's author Keven Leitch, who now seems to have come around to the prospect that a cure might not be so bad, but might actually not be necessary, though he gives no alternatives to a cure that might help an autistic. But Kev seems to say, he would not get in the way of a cure if there could be a cure. A long way from the "we don't need no stinkin' cure" motto of the autism hub that they apparently changed for some mysterious reason to something about acceptance of autistic people.
Kathleen Seidel seems to say that she is not opposed to treatments being found for people with autism so she does not seem to think that autism is not all joy and beauty, so this may be another example of one neurodiversity proponent trying to have it both ways.
Alex Plank, does make some sense in that he says that since there is no cure there is no point in arguing about it, but wants something done for the autistic people on this planet now whom with his alleged asperger's diagnosis i don't think he has much in common with. But we also have to think about the lives of children who will be born in the future and what we can do to ensure they will not have to suffer from all the hardships an ASD can bring. This is why the work of autism speaks and other organizations are so important.
On the subject of autism speaks, i was very disappointed to again read Ari Neeman as being quoted that autism speaks is complicit in the murders of autistic children just because of one dumb remark one person associated with the organization made in a video. It is unfortunate this kind of demagoguery has to be used by these people to justify their otherwise unjustifiable position.
Lenny Schaefer was saying don't write about these people, we don't need to give them publicity. Though I find neurodiversity as distasteful as Mr. Schaefer (though I don't agree with him on vaccines causing autism and the likelihood of a true rise of autism), I don't believe he is correct on this. Neurodiversity is no less of a fringe movement than people who believe the earth is flat and at some point, when they start getting more publicity people will see how silly their position truly is. I hope then at some point that parents of newly diagnosed children will reject this movement. I hope this will motivate people to find medical solutions to autism.
I realize that Plank's point about we want something done for autistics who are here now may be well taken. It is true, that the scientific research that autism speaks funds may not provide beneficial treatments let alone cures for people with autism in our lifetime, though as I said in the previous paragraph we do have to think about future generations. However, what can be done for the autistic persons on this planet now? I wish I had some easy quick fix answers but I don't. However, I don't believe that ABA, poorly thought out laws like the IDEA and the IEPs (Idiotic Expectations Programs) are any answer. I also don't believe that acceptance, preaching neurodiversity provide any answers to autism either. Also societal acceptance certainly provide no answer to nonspeaking head-banging autistics whose problems neurodiversity proponents won't seem to acknowledge. Therefore I hope that people will reject this way of thinking. I also hope that pieces like those published in the New York Magazine will allow those to see for themselves what a misguided movement this is and will lead people to reject it.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Another new nonfiction piece on my web page
I have just uploaded a new article on my web page. It concerns some ironies about the Lovaas Institute for early development and the social security administration office. the article is at:
www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/lovaas.html I submitted this article to My Turn column in Newsweek magazine last October. I never heard back from them. They said in the submission guidelines that they receive about 200 submissions for every piece they publish in this column and that if a writer did not hear back from them in two months this meant they were not under consideration. Well, apparently, I did not beat the 200 to 1 odds of getting the piece published in Newsweek. It is sort of an interesting irony and as some of my older readers may remember, before I moved my blogging over here from Jonathan's Journal on my web page, I blogged about this topic there, so I guess you can go there and read it there too if you like. don't think I need to provide the URL as I am pretty sure any interested reader can navigate from the lovaas-related article to the journal section of my webpage and find it there.
Since I did not beat those 200 to 1 odds I decided to publish it in the non-fiction part of my web page in case anyone gives a shit and is interested in reading it. Well, thanks in advance to anyone who happens to read it.
www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/lovaas.html I submitted this article to My Turn column in Newsweek magazine last October. I never heard back from them. They said in the submission guidelines that they receive about 200 submissions for every piece they publish in this column and that if a writer did not hear back from them in two months this meant they were not under consideration. Well, apparently, I did not beat the 200 to 1 odds of getting the piece published in Newsweek. It is sort of an interesting irony and as some of my older readers may remember, before I moved my blogging over here from Jonathan's Journal on my web page, I blogged about this topic there, so I guess you can go there and read it there too if you like. don't think I need to provide the URL as I am pretty sure any interested reader can navigate from the lovaas-related article to the journal section of my webpage and find it there.
Since I did not beat those 200 to 1 odds I decided to publish it in the non-fiction part of my web page in case anyone gives a shit and is interested in reading it. Well, thanks in advance to anyone who happens to read it.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Mercury Militia versus Neurodiversity, an ironic war between two adversaries
Lately, I have been reading the multiple blog entries by those in the neurodiversity camp protesting the subpoena of neurodiversity.com owner Kathleen Seidel, by one of the lawyers involved in anti-vaccine litigation for one of the members of the mercury militia. I was also reading a blog by someone who calls themselves Axinar who was blogging about this ongoing feud. I really have no comment on the subpoena one way or the other as I don't really know all the details as I do not know whether or not this attorney is really just trying to harass Ms. Seidel as some proponents of neurodiversity seem to believe. I have also been reading the famous John Best's vitriolically profane diatribes on the matter also. He seems to want nothing less than the electric chair for any member of neurodiversity.
What I am more interested in commenting about is the irony of the whole situation. Those in the mercury militia and neurodiversity seem very much alike to me in many respects.
Those who belong to the mercury militia, particularly people like Best, J.B. Handley and others who are part of the organization Generation Rescue have it all figured out, or at least so they think. The answer is really easy. Autism is just another name for mercury poisoning. Autistic people are not really permanently damaged, they just have too much mercury floating about in their brains from vaccines, pollution from coal burning plants dental amalgams or other mercury-containing sources. The solution we are told is easy. Autism is curable through a treatment called chelation where chemical agents bind to the mercury that is in the autistic's brain and removes it. When this occurs they are cured, problem solved. A vexing problem which scientists have been researching for a few decades has an easy answer that those working in these labs and receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer and private sector grants were apparently too moronic to think of. If we only listen to JB, and the rest of the generation rescue entourage. Autism will no longer be a problem, everyone with the condition will be cured by chelation.
Those in neurodiversity have their own easy simple solution. Autism is not really a disability, at least not a medical one. It is only a societal disability in that society is too prejudiced to accommodate these people who are only just wired slightly differently. These same scientists, and organizations like autism speaks who are so despised by the mercury militia are equally abhorred by those who advocate neurodiversity. They are just wasting their time. If society would only make the necessary accommodations for these people, would stop being so bigoted and would only forget their genocidal ambitions to cure autism, autistic people would no longer be at a disadvantage. They would be able to do everything that the neurotypical can do, problem solved.
These groups have much more in common then they ever dreamed of. This is why both opposing camps have so much animosity towards autism speaks and other neuroscientists and geneticists struggling so hard to find answers for this baffling disorder. What a bunch of cretins these geneticists and neuroscientists who are working their asses off for nothing are!! All this work and money flushed down the toilet. After all, two groups of people have these easy solutions that make their jobs and their grants utterly superfluous. one group says that if chelation is done all this is unnecessary. The other says, societal acceptance will solve everything. If either side is correct, these scientists will be out of a job.
As the few regular readers of my writings and the few fans I do have know, I don't agree with either camp. But I can't help getting a kick of the irony of how similar the two organizations are.
One organization spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising in USA today and other newspapers just to convert lost souls who are first learning that their 3 year old child has this condition.
Neurodiversity, as I have mentioned before, are not unlike christian missionaries, trying to find lost souls, disaffected by society to convert to their viewpoint.
Is it possible that both groups manage to get members on one side or the other because both provide easy, albeit different, answers to this problem?
I wonder who is wasting time, the geneticists and neuroscientists who are trying to find some real answers for autism, hoping that they can find a real cure once and for all or these two groups of people so diametrically opposed to each other but ironically enough so similar in so many respects.
In some ways I envy the two groups. My life has been made so hard by this disability. I have had to accept many times that my tears for toasted snow of having a better life have not been answered. These two groups in their convictions know that things could be so much easier if only people would be converted to their positions. Autism would never be a problem for anyone.
I feel though I must be realistic in assessing the situation. I do not believe there are quick fixes or easy answers to autism, so I am going to have to be frustrated. However, my frustration can be mitigated slightly by laughing at the humor of the similarities between these two warring entities.
What I am more interested in commenting about is the irony of the whole situation. Those in the mercury militia and neurodiversity seem very much alike to me in many respects.
Those who belong to the mercury militia, particularly people like Best, J.B. Handley and others who are part of the organization Generation Rescue have it all figured out, or at least so they think. The answer is really easy. Autism is just another name for mercury poisoning. Autistic people are not really permanently damaged, they just have too much mercury floating about in their brains from vaccines, pollution from coal burning plants dental amalgams or other mercury-containing sources. The solution we are told is easy. Autism is curable through a treatment called chelation where chemical agents bind to the mercury that is in the autistic's brain and removes it. When this occurs they are cured, problem solved. A vexing problem which scientists have been researching for a few decades has an easy answer that those working in these labs and receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer and private sector grants were apparently too moronic to think of. If we only listen to JB, and the rest of the generation rescue entourage. Autism will no longer be a problem, everyone with the condition will be cured by chelation.
Those in neurodiversity have their own easy simple solution. Autism is not really a disability, at least not a medical one. It is only a societal disability in that society is too prejudiced to accommodate these people who are only just wired slightly differently. These same scientists, and organizations like autism speaks who are so despised by the mercury militia are equally abhorred by those who advocate neurodiversity. They are just wasting their time. If society would only make the necessary accommodations for these people, would stop being so bigoted and would only forget their genocidal ambitions to cure autism, autistic people would no longer be at a disadvantage. They would be able to do everything that the neurotypical can do, problem solved.
These groups have much more in common then they ever dreamed of. This is why both opposing camps have so much animosity towards autism speaks and other neuroscientists and geneticists struggling so hard to find answers for this baffling disorder. What a bunch of cretins these geneticists and neuroscientists who are working their asses off for nothing are!! All this work and money flushed down the toilet. After all, two groups of people have these easy solutions that make their jobs and their grants utterly superfluous. one group says that if chelation is done all this is unnecessary. The other says, societal acceptance will solve everything. If either side is correct, these scientists will be out of a job.
As the few regular readers of my writings and the few fans I do have know, I don't agree with either camp. But I can't help getting a kick of the irony of how similar the two organizations are.
One organization spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising in USA today and other newspapers just to convert lost souls who are first learning that their 3 year old child has this condition.
Neurodiversity, as I have mentioned before, are not unlike christian missionaries, trying to find lost souls, disaffected by society to convert to their viewpoint.
Is it possible that both groups manage to get members on one side or the other because both provide easy, albeit different, answers to this problem?
I wonder who is wasting time, the geneticists and neuroscientists who are trying to find some real answers for autism, hoping that they can find a real cure once and for all or these two groups of people so diametrically opposed to each other but ironically enough so similar in so many respects.
In some ways I envy the two groups. My life has been made so hard by this disability. I have had to accept many times that my tears for toasted snow of having a better life have not been answered. These two groups in their convictions know that things could be so much easier if only people would be converted to their positions. Autism would never be a problem for anyone.
I feel though I must be realistic in assessing the situation. I do not believe there are quick fixes or easy answers to autism, so I am going to have to be frustrated. However, my frustration can be mitigated slightly by laughing at the humor of the similarities between these two warring entities.
Friday, April 4, 2008
damn it, Alex, some of us want to be cured
Wrong Planet founder, Alex Plank, was recently interviewed and stated what is the point of view of at least some (if you are reading this Jypsy I am qualifying my statements with some so as not to be misleading) persons with autism spectrum disorders that all or at least most persons with autism do not want to be cured. I am not sure where he gets that number unless it is the relatively small sample of persons who congregate on his web page out of all the autistics in the whole world most of whom are far more severely disabled than probably most of the denizens of wrong planet.net.
Plank, is going to college doing well and has a girfriend. I am 52, never had one, probably never will. I suspect my other problems aside from the girl situation are more severe than his. I must disagree with him. I do want to be cured. I also know of sue rubin, someone who calls herself droopy, tom mckean and others who want to be cured. There are some others who I won't name as they may not want their privacy violated who also want a cure and reject the notion of neurodiversity.
I am quite curious where Plank gets the idea that all or most don't want a cure. Again, I will use the analogy that i used in my article, neurodiversity just say no, of the poller taking a poll in Biloxi, Mississippi and coming to the conclusion that at least 99% of all Americans want John McCain to be president of the United States, want to bring back a military draft, want to outlaw abortion and bring back prayer in the schools. This is the type of reasoning Plank and the other persons who make this claim are using.
One of the sad truths is that most of the autistics who do want a cure have never had an internet blog or have no way of posting on the internet and never will. They don't have the education or functioning level or inclination to write blog posts or post comments on other people's blogs. If Plank thinks that no one on the spectrum will rebut his claims he is sadly mistaken. I am on record of saying I wish there could be a cure for autism. Again, I urge anyone who is proposed by a neurodiversity adherent to just say no to neurodiversity.
In the event that you happen to read this, Alex, perhaps you can tell me where you get your figure of "most" autistics not wanting to be cured. Have you taken any sort of scientific poll of a cross section of autistics. Even if you have. What about all of the autistics who are unable to talk or communicate in any way? How can they tell you, they want a cure? My friend, neuroscientist Matthew Belmonte's brother has a very limited ability to communicate using facilited communcation. He has communicated to Matthew that he does not like his autism and wants to be cured. You have to factor this in also, Alex. I am still waiting to find out where this idea comes from, from at least some persons on the spectrum that most or all don't want a cure.
Plank, is going to college doing well and has a girfriend. I am 52, never had one, probably never will. I suspect my other problems aside from the girl situation are more severe than his. I must disagree with him. I do want to be cured. I also know of sue rubin, someone who calls herself droopy, tom mckean and others who want to be cured. There are some others who I won't name as they may not want their privacy violated who also want a cure and reject the notion of neurodiversity.
I am quite curious where Plank gets the idea that all or most don't want a cure. Again, I will use the analogy that i used in my article, neurodiversity just say no, of the poller taking a poll in Biloxi, Mississippi and coming to the conclusion that at least 99% of all Americans want John McCain to be president of the United States, want to bring back a military draft, want to outlaw abortion and bring back prayer in the schools. This is the type of reasoning Plank and the other persons who make this claim are using.
One of the sad truths is that most of the autistics who do want a cure have never had an internet blog or have no way of posting on the internet and never will. They don't have the education or functioning level or inclination to write blog posts or post comments on other people's blogs. If Plank thinks that no one on the spectrum will rebut his claims he is sadly mistaken. I am on record of saying I wish there could be a cure for autism. Again, I urge anyone who is proposed by a neurodiversity adherent to just say no to neurodiversity.
In the event that you happen to read this, Alex, perhaps you can tell me where you get your figure of "most" autistics not wanting to be cured. Have you taken any sort of scientific poll of a cross section of autistics. Even if you have. What about all of the autistics who are unable to talk or communicate in any way? How can they tell you, they want a cure? My friend, neuroscientist Matthew Belmonte's brother has a very limited ability to communicate using facilited communcation. He has communicated to Matthew that he does not like his autism and wants to be cured. You have to factor this in also, Alex. I am still waiting to find out where this idea comes from, from at least some persons on the spectrum that most or all don't want a cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
