You may be aware that the anti-vaccinationists have been conducting a smear campaign both publicly and privately against Dr Nancy Minshew lately because she stated quite rightly it was time for the autism community to move on.
I thought it might be nice if she had a few supportive emails land in her inbox as well as the wall of hate she’s no doubt getting from elsewhere.
I’ve set up a simple form letter requiring a signature from you. The email will be checked by me and then forwarded on to Dr Minshew.
Left Brain Right Brain 
I think the usual suspects over at AOA etc. have gone excessively overboard in their “criticism” of Dr. Minshew—-the “smearing,” if I may call it that, is quite excessive and veering beyond control. Very glad you put this up.
Kev,
Thank you for doing this.
I sent a personal email, but, honestly, I was not sure if it would be received, since there is a probability that the campaign is also being conducted off blog. Given the vitriolic tenor at AOA, and the current focus put on Dr. Minshew, if I were her, I might be tempted to restrict my email.
Again, thanks for doing this.
Kev,
Thanks for doing this. I signed my name.
Also some classes in social skills.
Signed.
I wish there was a 4th option for autistic parents like myself.
Your wish, my command 😉
Signed without hesitation.
The dimwitted at EoH, not to mention the inbred simpleton that is John Best, are of a minority opinion. Rude and socially immature yes, but the minority nonetheless.
If it were only about science, I would. But I understand Dr. Minshew is an anti-autism researcher, so I’m not inclined to send a message of support about her work.
Kev, could we get a category for “fellow scientist (not in autism research)”, pretty please?
Fair enough Joseph 🙂 but the letter is simply about vaccines and science. Not about other research.
Done Catherina 🙂
Signed!
I was really taken aback bvy Kim Staglioni’s post. Talk about blatant dishonesty or above average stupidity. What does she think she’s got – autism was always diagnosed in the past as schizophrenia? And this is based on someone’ else’s interpretation, the media no less. Well lets ignore all of the article except for the schizophrenia bit – especially the broadening of criteria so that these kids got ‘behavior problems’ if they got anything at all. Most PDD and AS would have got nothing at all – and they constitute what is these days – 75% of all new diagnoses. But if you’re Kim Staglioni you have to ignore all that so you can make the false cum stupid statement that all autism was diagnosed as schizophrenia, which was true for ‘some’ kids at one point in history. Actually the article says that, but that doesn’t matter if you’re Kim Staglioni.
But it should matter to Kim Staglioni. She may have had a reputation as a reasonable person at one point. Not any more.
Joseph,
What exactly do you mean by “…I understand Dr. Minshew is an anti-autism researcher…”.
She researches anti-autism?
She actively opposes any and all research pertaining to autism spectrum disorders and the diagnosis, treatment, education, etc…thereof?
Please elaborate and cite your source(s). Thanks.
Dr. Minshew’s views are certainly mainstream, and I don’t have an issue with her scientific views. But her value judgements about autism are not something I agree with.
Autism means “Something horrible has happened to your child” according to Dr. Minshew. (source)
For those of us who have autistic kids, is autism something horrible the kids experience? From what I’ve seen, I don’t think so. Is autism something that “happened” to them or is it something they are?
Even from a public health perspective, one could argue that these sorts of statements by scientists (including inaccurately grim prognoses) are what enable aberrations like the Merc Militia. I’m not sure which is worse frankly, the altie militants or the enablers.
Done.
Age of Autism – The National Enquirer of the Autism World.. It must be exhausting to be so bitter 24/7. Geez…
Joseph,
I don’t want to assume your last post was an attempt to answer my question. If it was (an attempt, that is), it didn’t.
I’m merely asking you to clarify your statement “…I understand Dr. Minshew is an anti-autism researcher…”.
Joseph, I fear the quote that you attribute to Nancy Minshew isn’t exactly what she said. The phrase you excerpted from my blog was made in a pretty specific context. She was explaining why people might attribute Autism to vaccinations, not giving her opinion about Autism. In commenting on the concerns families understandably have when they learn that a child has Autism, she noted the coincidence between the appearance of Autism and vaccinations:
I’d hazard a guess that at the time of diagnosis, the vast majority of parents feel that Autism is “something horrible” that has happened to one of the most important people in their lives. If families were not concerned about the unusual development and behavior of their children, they would be unlikely even seek professional counsel that leads to the diagnosis of Autism.
Well, the statement is pretty clear to me, and the context doesn’t help. If she doesn’t think autism is horrible, she didn’t make that at all clear. She’s further encouraging that type of discourse about autism.
About her being an anti-autism researcher, well, she is, in the sense that her research focuses on a disease model of autism, studying deficits (and sometimes strengths) as though they are the result of an external force on an otherwise normal individual – rather than the phenotype of a different kind of person. That’s my impression anyway, and it’s true of most autism researchers, so I’m not saying she’s different than the rest or horrible or anything like that. On the contrary, she’s quite mainstream. There are few autism researchers whose approach is not prejudiced against autism, e.g. Dawson, Gernsbacher and Mottron.
Before the 1970s, I’m sure most homosexuality researchers had an anti-homosexuality approach to their research, and no one would dispute that research that looks at homosexuality as a disease (which exists) is anti-homosexuality, now would you? It’s the same thing.
Signed!
Welcome Back! Wow! Tres Cool!
I sent Dr. Minshew an expression of support last week, and received an appreciative note in return — which i won’t excerpt here because Age of Autism’s resident ethicist says that’s not OK. (Unless he’s the one doing it.)
I am curious as to why anyone here would support her statement on schizophrenia.
She clearly stated:
“The other phenomenon was that some autistic children were labeled as schizophrenic, and many may have ended up in state hospitals or other institutions, she said.”
This was one of only two explanations she gives to explain why people don’t remember seeing autistic children in the past.
Given that childhood Schizophrenia is considered extremely rare in children (1 in 40,000), yet she proposes “many” autistic children were misdiagnosed and ended up in institutions? How does her statement lend any credibility to her reasoning?
I don’t see anything particularly unusual about it. Kanner’s original paper clearly states that at least one of his eleven kids was misdiagnosed as schizophrenic.
I’m also unsure why you’ve scare quoted the word ‘many’ and attributed it to Dr Minshew when – as your own comment clearly states – she said ‘some’. The ‘many’ she refers to quite clearly refers to those who _may_ have been institutionalised.
Kev,
She’s offering it as one of two explanations for the reported increase in prevlance which happens to be a large increase implying “many”. If many were not mis-diagnosed, what is the point of even mentionning it to explain the increase in prevalence?
How else is one to interprete her hypothesis?
I’m not sure she’s offering it as a hypothesis. It sounds to me like its just an opinion she’s venturing. And she’s quite right. Some autistic children were misdiagnosed as schizophrenic.
As to why she mentioned it – I guess thats a question for her. To me its not even slightly important and I don’t really get why people are so mock-offended by it.
Kev,
Do you agree that there is an important ongoing debate as to whether there is actually an increase in the prevalance of Autism?
If you agree to that, then her comments certainly have importance.
Here is what is quoted from the article:
“And when people say they don’t remember seeing so many autistic children when they were growing up, or ask where all the adults with autism are, there are two possible explanations, Dr. Minshew said.
One is that many autistic children in the past were never sent to school. In what she called the “Forrest Gump era, you didn’t even go to school, or you went to a totally separate school.”
The other phenomenon was that some autistic children were labeled as schizophrenic, and many may have ended up in state hospitals or other institutions, she said.”
You’ll note that she does use the word “Many” (may have ended up in state hospitals).
She states very clearly that there are two possible reasons that we don’t remember seeing as many autistic children in the past.
Coming from her in the context of an Autism expert makes it far from a passing opinion. She has been studying Autism for a long time from a genetic perspective. I find it highly unlikely (and irresponsible) that she just decided to form an opinion the middle of an interview on the topic.
“As to why she mentioned it – I guess thats a question for her. ”
If you read the article, it is pretty clear why she mentionned it. Since she believes the cause is genetic, she was asked why we didn’t see so many autistic children in the past. She gave misdiagnosis of Schizophrenia as one of two reaons as her expert opinion (since she was being interviewed as an expert).
“To me its not even slightly important and I don’t really get why people are so mock-offended by it.”
I’m not offended by it. It is important, because 1) the increasing prevlance speaks directly to the possible causes 2) As an Autism expert she is proposing that the increase in prevalance is not real 3) She is offering misdiagnosed as Schizophrenia as one of two reasons to account for the lack of visible Autistic children in the past.
Those comments speak directly to her credibility.
Let me ask you then.
Do you believe misdiagnosis of Schizophrenia is one of two reaons to account for “many” cases of Autistic children being commited to institutions and therefore not being visible to the general public?
If you feel this is a credible argument from an Autism expert, then we can leave it as a difference of opinion.
Sorry dude, I just don’t understand why its even an issue. She said some autistic kids were diagnosed as schizophrenic – they were. Beyond that, its simply media. Its not like she’s said anything offensive or false.
Kev,
I would never advocate a smear campaign, and although I won’t sign the letter (because I don’t support her ideas), I don’t think it’s a bad idea.
However, if you want to dismiss her comments as only media then the whole interview can be dismissed as media.
I’ll live with that.
Well, I agree – it _is_ only media at the end of the day. I think what she said needed to be said but I don’t think it was anything massively controversial.