Dismay at Aspie ‘hate’

15 Feb

I read Bev’s latest blog entry bemused and increasingly dismayed. I thought (hoped) maybe she was wrong and had grasped the wrong end of the stick but not only is that unlikely coming from Bev it was wrong. She was spot on. There really were, I realised to my dawning amazement, people with an Aspergers diagnosis who were upset at the possibility of the DSM (V) placing them inside an overall category of ‘autism’. And not for any particularly legitimate reason but mostly because they didn’t want to be associated with the people who I’ve heard them describe as ‘low functioning’.

The comments I read under the story featuring Michael John Carely of GRASP for example pointed towards an internal selfishness bordering on disgust for those who _already_ share their place on the spectrum.

A stunningly nasty comment on this blog illustrates the issue even more handily:

Medical science used to have morons, idiots and imbeciles to describe people with defective brains, but those words became pejoratives, and mentally retarded was substituted. Then mentally retarded became a pejorative, and that got switched to developmentally disabled. Many parents with children born with defective brains glommed onto “autistic” because it had more cachét than retarded or fetal alcohol syndrome or brain damaged, perverting the word autistic and turning it into a new synonym for retarded.

So I don’t want to be called “autistic”. I prefer the distinction Asperger’s brings me; that I am endowed with a different brain, not suffering from a defective brain.

The only positive thing you can say about this commenter is at least they are being totally honest. I’ve read an uncomfortable amount of comments from aspies over the last few days that skirt around the exact same feeling but just don’t come out and say it quite so blatantly.

I know for a fact that not all aspies feel like this but I think those that don’t need to follow Bev’s example and come out and say so. Loudly and clearly. I don’t believe that aspies who want to disassociate themselves from their autistic comrades deserve any part in a movement like neurodiversity. I hope, I believe, that the aspies I count amongst my friends and colleagues feel that way too.

Ari pointed me towards some comforting support from ASAN on the issue:


Update No.2
More blog reactions. If anyone knows of more please leave the address in the comments and I’ll add them to what I hope will be an ever growing list.

Clay – http://cometscorner-clay.blogspot.com/2010/02/true-neurodiversity-welcomes-dsm-v.html

Samantha – http://unclesamscabin.blogspot.com/2010/02/resisting-taint-of-autism.html

67 Responses to “Dismay at Aspie ‘hate’”

  1. Phil Schwarz February 17, 2010 at 10:08 #

    I’ve been very busy with work and family matters in the past few weeks, so I haven’t had the time I need to catch up with all that has been said in the autistic community about the draft DSM-V autism language.

    I think a whole bunch of things have gotten conflated on the one hand, or dichotomized on the other, in really unfortunate ways.

    Bev’s post was one of the first things I did read, and I agree with her completely.

    I honestly don’t know, though, how many “Aspies” there really are out there that are really “angry”, or even as uncomfortable as Michael John Carley seems to be, about being recategorized within the rest of the autism spectrum. I think Carley became the unwitting poster-child for a mainstream media run with such a story, and that story only reinforces the lies that those who fear and/or seek to undermine autistic self-advocacy repeat endlessly — that autistic self-advocates are all “high functioning Aspies” unconcerned with issues facing autistic people more disabled than they are, etc. etc.

    The reaction — from many others in addition to Bev — has been swift and forceful, and well it should be.

    But what’s gotten trampled in the process is that Carley’s ugly discomfort is *not* the only reason one might question the wisdom of completely eliminating the term “Asperger” from the DSM autism language.

    I happen to think that there is utility in retaining the term *within* the unified ASD diagnosis — which I think is a good thing and a long time in coming. I think that for now, it should be used as a shorthand for the region of the unified ASD diagnosis’s domains which most closely matches the DSM-IV AS diagnosis. This will ease transition into the new diagnostic rubric — not for “angry Aspies”, but for clinicians, insurers, educators, employers, and so on — the many user constituencies of the DSM other than researchers and individuals carrying the diagnoses it defines.

    Whether there is need for such a transition is a matter for open and reasoned debate. The media circus unleashed by the “angry Aspies” story has polarized discourse and made such reasoned debate difficult, if not impossible.

    As research into cognitive profiles of the autism spectrum population advances, the definition of such shorthands for specific regions of the unified ASD diagnostic category may change; more shorthands may be added; some may be merged. This will need to be done so as to serve the needs of the various user constituencies of the DSM — researchers and individuals carrying the ASD diagnosis as well as the other constituencies I mentioned above.

    But I think all of this should take place *within* the unified ASD diagnostic category, *which I think is a good thing*.

    I am speaking here for myself, and not for AANE. I serve as vice-chair of AANE’s board of directors, and as such I am one voice among many — executive staff, officers, and board members, most of whom are not regular readers of the autistic blogosphere. My opinions don’t always prevail. Perhaps with time, they will, on this issue; I try to educate as best I can. I think that some of the language in AANE’s open letter to the DSM-V committee has contributed to the misbegotten “angry Aspies” story.

    The truth of the matter is that the flap over the Asperger label is far from the most concerning of issues with the proposed diagnostic language. The reduction to two domains, the *choice* of what to measure as domains, the omission of sensorimotor input and processing atypicalities as a fundamental domain, the ambiguity in meaning of the term “severity”, and the fact that the severity criteria are still yet-to-be published, are all greater concerns than the disposition of the Asperger label.

    So here are my full thoughts — so far — on the proposed DSM-V autism language:

    1. Integration of AS into the new 299.00 ASD is on balance a good thing.

    a. It fixes the primary problem with the DSM-IV categories that has hindered researchers, which is that similar individuals were being fairly arbitrarily classified into separate buckets (AS, PDD-NOS, autistic disorder).

    b. Integration of the entire spectrum population into the new ASD category will help eradicate the stigma and persisting misconceptions about autism in the mind of the public. Richard Grinker stated this eloquently in his op-ed column in the NY Times.

    c. In states where benefits accrue only to people diagnosed with autism, this should help extend eligibility. But see #3 below; what this giveth, that could take away.

    2. I am concerned about the reduction to 2 characteristic domains.

    a. The domains chosen are in general *sequelae* of other, more
    fundamental characteristics, principal among them sensory input and sensory *processing* differences. Sensory issues are given only a token presence, as the cause of a(n optional) category of “repetitive and restricted behaviors” (domain 2). I firmly believe that research will find, over time, that atypical sensory input, sensorimotor response, and/or processing is present in *every* legitimately diagnosed autistic person to some extent and in some form, and that those atypicalities inform, shape, and contribute to *causation* of the observable traits in the two existing domains in this new 299.00 ASD definition (domain 1 being social/communication issues, domain 2 being repetitive or restricted behaviors). So these domains do not get us any closer to understanding the root essence of autism.

    b. The domains chosen just happen to be the domains measured by the ADOS, the diagnostic instrument designed and promoted by the chair of the committee that wrote the new 299.00 ASD definition. This seems tautological to me; it smacks of the joke about the drunk who loses his keys in an alley but is searching for them out on the main street because the street lamp there makes it better lit :-).

    c. The whole question of “severity” — what it means and how it is measured — in the new 299.00 ASD definition is problematic. Do they mean “impairment of function”? Do they mean “intensity of observed trait(s)”? In each case, what is the proposed mechanism for measurement? Even ADOS is notoriously subjective in its application. It speaks *volumes* that they have put the new definition up on http://www.dsm5.org with the “Severity” tab empty of content. (They say it will be posted later and to check back frequently.) I think this is indicative that the bulk of the original problem with the DSM-IV categories facing researchers remains unsolved, in DSM-V: subjectivity of classification leading to false identification of probands as “apples and oranges” rather than “apples and apples”. What DSM-IV mistakenly put into separate buckets, DSM-V will mistakenly assign severity measures that differ due to subjectivity of the observer. Big error bars on a single bucket may be better than classification into multiple disjoint buckets, but I suspect by a lot less than the authors hope for.

    3. I am concerned that the language in both the domain definitions — in particular, what is considered mandatory for a diagnosis vs. what is considered optional — and in the “severity” dimensions (a huge shoe still yet to be dropped!) will “undiagnose” people who very definitely need support, services, and accommodation.

    I am concerned that the less “severe” ends of the dimensions will be characterized as “mild”, resulting in ill-advised decisions by insurers, educators, employers, and others with power to grant or deny benefits that that “mildness” warrants less support, services, and accommodation. There is nothing categorically “mild” about the existing DSM-IV AS or PDD-NOS, and I am concerned that the reclassification of people with those diagnoses into less “severe” dimensional regions of the new 299.00 ASD diagnosis will lead to the denial of support, services, and accommodations, even if not to outright “undiagnosing”.

    4. I am concerned about the value-judgement biases that remain in the language of the definition. I expect to see more such value-judgement bias in the language defining the “severity” dimensions when that is finally settled upon and posted. Michelle Dawson writes eloquently about this, in the course of assessing the problematic nature of the proposed “severity” dimensions:

    5. I think that the term “Asperger” should be retained, specifically as shorthand for a specific cluster of traits in the measured domains. In fact, I am in favor of adopting additional shorthand for other yet-unnamed clusters as doing so becomes beneficial to any of the user constituencies of the DSM.

    The proposed changes benefit only one of the several user constituencies of the DSM, namely researchers — by reducing the “apples and oranges” effect arising from DSM-IV’s disjoint categories. But there are other constituencies as well: clinicians, insurers, educators, employers, diagnosed individuals themselves, their families, and supporters and caregivers. The shorthand designations (and I think “Asperger” should not be the only such one, over time) help people dealing with the same needs to more easily and efficiently find appropriate resources and fellow travelers. This has certainly been true for AS individuals and their families and supporters over the course of time DSM-IV has been in publication. Having the term available as shorthand — but not to the exclusion or even pre-emption of the unified dimensional ASD diagnosis — seems to me to be the best way of balancing the needs of the other user constituencies of the DSM besides researchers, with those of the researchers.

  2. NightStorm February 17, 2010 at 15:57 #

    so in addition to all the usual biases attached to people who rail against self-diagnosis, it’s both ageist and classist among many other things

    Because only old poor people self-diagnosis? It’s not like some lonely teenager that is trying on labels and finding an identity isn’t gonna look up the DSM-IV or WebMD and decided that because he had one to many ‘swirlies’ that he is really asperger and uses it as an excuse for being superficial and a jerk.

    Surely that never happens.

    If my sarcasm isn’t enough, I see more young adults parading around with a self-diagnosis than older people. And most do with the kind of juvenile sort of immaturity, thinking that self-labeling is a replacement to a real diagnosis. And if you do question their dia-excuse me their identity. Everyone dog-piles on you about it until you bow out and hide some place else. Dear gods, if feel like I am back in the Otherkin community sometimes, just replace “Asperger’s” with “Elf”.

    I have no problem with label wearing or trying on different ‘hats’ but I get irriated when these kids thunder around with their new shiny hat acting like they are the experts.

    I haven’t met any older self-diagnosis except for my dear friend who moved, but I am sure the are not like the younger generations who are still quiet immature.

    but I respectfully disagree with the assumption that it is agest to be against self-diagnosis.

  3. Dedj February 17, 2010 at 17:13 #

    MJ: first, Sullivan and others have addressed your concerns directly and appropriately you’re inability to address this is your problem not theirs.

    As an example of just how difficult you are finding this rather simple issue, let’s look at your obtuse and error-stricken misunderstanding of my last response:

    “@Dedi – you speak in contradictions. If a movement is not made up of its members then what precisely is it made of up? And if the members do not speak for the movement, then who does?”

    I never said anything remotely like this. That misreading of what I said exists solely within your head. I do not appreciate your misreading and/or misrepresentation of my point.

    You have utterly missed the point that members of a movement can hold opinions that are not derived from their membership of that movement, or that individual members opinions are not automatically defining opinions of the movement. There may be anti-autistic members of the ‘ND’ movement, however, as has been pointed out, people such as yourself with your exclusively negative talk of autism have definetly contributed to the stigma of autism, and the hierarchy of impairments both pre-exists and exist independantly of whatever may be called the ‘ND’ movement.

    There are many ‘ND’ people that are pro-NLP, some to the point of becoming practioners. Others are furiously agianst it, literally and figuritively. By your arguement both would have to be ‘ND’ arguements at exactly the same time. Same as with the split in support/opposition to sectioning, MCA, DoL etc. Same as with the support/opposition to psychmeds and alternative diets.

    “The contradictions of your statements seems to know no bounds. You first say –
    “Members have no power to ban other members.”

    and then you call for me to be banned –
    “I would suggest that MJ gets banned”

    I am clearly not a “member” of ND but the irony is almost off the charts.”

    The stupidity is off the charts here. Members have no power to exclude over members from claiming membership of a movement. Your participation on a blog is not membership of a movement.

    You have either falsely equated the two or you really do not understand the huge difference. Either way you have made yourself look both aggresive and idiotic.

    As an example, I could get banned from every conference, blog or meeting, and yet my membership of the ‘ND’ movement cannot be revoked, even though I myself may be marginalised. There is no official register of membership, thus even people who hold entirely non-‘ND’ views can (and, if you are correct – do) claim membership.

    “As for “direct reference” and a “rationale behind [my] interpretation”, perhaps you could explain what a “direct reference” for my “interpretation” would be?”

    Note how you suddenly change what I said halfway through your sentence. This is either a deliberate trick on your behalf, or you really have not been following the thread properly.

    You were asked upthread for a example of a single well known pro-‘ND’ person that holds the beliefs you attribute to the entire movement. That would be called a reference.

    Explaining why you think their statements constitute what you say they do would be what is called a rationale.

    “If you want that, click on the link on my name and there you go – a direct reference to what my opinions are.”

    That wasn’t what was asked. You either know this and are simply lying, or you don’t and therefore haven’t been following the thread.

    “Although, and this is just a thought, maybe you could provide a direct reference and rationale behind this statement that I show hatred, presumably to people with autism – which would include my children.”

    Again, this is either a deliberate misrepresentation or you haven’t been following the thread. You have been making strong and false accusations against the ‘ND’ movement. In context the only correct interpretation would be hatred towards the ‘ND’ movement.

    Please keep up.

    “If you are unable to do so, then perhaps you should, by your own logic, call for your own banning as well? Just a thought.”

    But I haven’t displayed the same posting history that you have – here and elsewhere. You have just shown that you read my post, yet it appears you understood very little of it.

    No one else appears to have the same comprehension problems that you do. Perhaps you might like to consider that it might be you that is in error, assuming your ego will let you.

    Notice that through none of this have you made a single accurate statement, nor have you provided a single example of the sort of person you alledge constitutes the ‘ND’ movement.

    By the way, not only have I delivered treatment to people with autism and may do so in the future, I am far from the only person in the ‘ND’ movement that has or currently works in providing interventions to people with autism. Somehow, even though a few of the members that provide or advocate for services are rather well known (including participants on this thread), you ignore these and only concentrate on the people that fit your pre-conceptions.

    That behaviour, Sir, is utterly unacceptable.

    Your dishonesty and/or lack of coherency in this thread is shockingly poor compared to your apparent self-preception.

    Please refrain from posting until such time as you are willing to make an effort.


  4. Sullivan February 18, 2010 at 02:08 #

    A simple way to summarize this is:

    I have no idea why MJ comes here. By his definition I (and I believe Kev) are not Neurodiverse advocates.

    He can make up whatever definition he wants. Just don’t expect anyone to agree with him.

  5. MJ February 18, 2010 at 03:41 #

    @Sullivan –

    Ok, since you say that I like to play games, lets play a game of reading comprehension. Ready?

    I ranted –

    “You limit people with autism with your anti-cure, anti-treatment rhetoric by making them feel ashamed if they try to cure the most disabling aspects of their conditions”

    Now, I would like you to note, that the word “You” in the sentence was meant in the plural as you (specifically, you) should have been able to tell when I used the phrase “you lot” in a preceding paragraph. But, I understand that this might be confusing, so lets continue on.

    You replied –

    “Give one concrete example of that. One.”

    I responded (not ranting this time) –

    “PS – here is your one example of the ND movement discouraging treatment”

    Notice that I clarified the use of the “you” by substituting the more obvious “ND movement”?

    To which you replied –

    “let me get this straight. When asked to provide evidence that I am anti treatment, you point me to a blog post of yours that isn’t even about me?”

    So, where exactly is the misunderstanding here? I realize I might have been ambiguous the first time but the second there really is no room for misunderstanding.

    Lets try another one. You said –

    “That includes applying risky, unproven treatments to disabled children”


    “I do not believe that any parent should be talked into a “treatment” where the safety and efficacy have not been proven.”

    to which I replied –

    “But fine, point out one time where I advocate for trying “dangerous” or “unsafe” treatments”

    Well, you might have me this time. You in fact said “risky” and “unproven” while I turned that into “dangerous” and while you said “safety and efficacy have not been proven” I said “unsafe”. You are clearly right and these are noth completely unrelated topics.

    And how about one more, shall we?

    You said –

    “Guess what. Chelation is not treating anything to do with autism. Lupron is not treating anything to do with autism. As to actual treatments, you are so far from the mark as to be laughable.”

    Notice you appear to be implying that I (unless you are using you to refer to multiple people here) support chelation or lupron.

    I replied –

    “Find one example where I suggest that chelation or lupron or other “uncontrolled experiments” are a good idea.”

    to which you replied –

    “But, here is what you do. You support Andrew Wakefield. Your support is rather weak, but it’s there when you downplay the ethical lapses found proven by the GMC. Those lapses include the use of an experimental drug on disabled children.”

    And there we go, you put words in my mouth about chelation and lupron and when you realize you were wrong you switch to guilt by association. I wrote that I felt the outcome of the GMC was a forgone conclusion because of the politics surrounding the issue and you turn that into me agreeing with using experimental drugs on disabled children. I think you lose this one.

    So let me do you one more favor and answer one of the questions you asked that actually matter. You asked why I don’t spend my time bashing treatments like chelation and lupron, and the answer is simple.

    I prefer to focus on things that can actually help people with autism and don’t necessarily get covered other places. You may think it is of the utmost importance to bash a treatment while I think it is a much better use of my time to suggest to parents what might actually help their children.

    For example, why don’t you cover that some children with autism might have problems with extremely low cholesterol? This one even has an easy fix – get your child’s cholesterol checked, and if it is too low change their diet to incorporate sources of good cholesterol (eggs for example). If your child is having nutritional issues it can cause systematic problems and addressing the imbalance can lead to a better quality of life and less issues.

    Or are nutrional problems one of those things that parents have to “accept” about their child? Perhaps it is a “co-morbid” condition – oh wait, that’s right, I don’t understand that word.

    • Sullivan February 18, 2010 at 06:18 #


      You get the last word.

  6. Laurentius Rex February 18, 2010 at 10:48 #

    I actually night storms comments to be equally as offensive as the ‘aspie supremacists’ who wouldn’t be seen dead wearing diapers.

    I would call night storms category ‘aspie exclusionists’

    The equivalent of the ‘plymouth brethren’ who are the only ones going to heaven.

    Nothing is new under the sun of course, as it reminds me of the rant Thomas McKean had some time ago when he appeared to resent that the Asperger’s category had opened the door to too many speakers on the conference circuit spoiling the exclusivity he must have felt when he was one of the ‘priveleged’ few. Of course even then there was this diagnostic snobbery, casting aspersians on other peoples ‘official’ dx’s even then. Donna Williams being a particular target as I recall.

    The problem as I have always said lies in the medical categories and the medical model. There is always likely to be a problem with self dx to some extent, but I do think given the junk in DSM, who would want to identify with it if it did not fit to some extent, though maybe not to that ill defined and illusory concept of ‘clinical degree’

    Those who think Asperger’s is cooler and more acceptable than Autism, well they are still labling themselves with a “disorder’

    Yes some folks can get it wrong, but I don’t think they are likely to stick around. Some folks get it right but eventually do get that elususive medical ‘cachet’

    The point about self diagnosis within an alternative social model of autism/aspergers is the notion of ‘peer validated’ diagnosis, in that the category does not and never did belong to Dr’s any more than Dyslexia does, the last thing it requires is a medical training to recognise, as it is a diagnosis of psychological observation.

    The concept of peer validated diagnosis I owe to Martijn Dekker.

    Martijn Dekker, I hear a few puzzled voices ask? (metaphorically that is, don’t want a dx of Sz do I?) Well I wonder where the ‘curebie’ anti vax crowd place him in the pantheon of ‘ND’, because you don’t see his name appearing in the blogosphere much, which just goes to demonstrate not all the action takes place in this rather artificial arena.

  7. Dedj February 18, 2010 at 15:11 #

    MJ seriously doesn’t get it.

    ‘Anti-treatment’ refers to a philosophy of opposing any form of treatment. Opposing a form of treatment does not make one ‘anti-treatment’, if it did, people who promote one school of treatment over another would , by this definition, be ‘anti-treatment’.

    That is self-evidently and obviously and clearly a logically inconsistent and rather stupid arguement to make.

    There’s no need to continue this discussion if MJ is just going to define terms how and when he pleases.

    “For example, why don’t you cover that some children with autism might have problems with extremely low cholesterol?”

    Why isn’t this obvious? Children with autism ‘might’ have problems with all sorts of things. Just like other children.

    Unless you can show it is intrinsically linked to thier autism, there’s no reason why autism advocates ‘should’ focus on anything other than autism issues during their autism work.

    That YOU think they should is no arguement.

    “If your child is having nutritional issues it can cause systematic problems and addressing the imbalance can lead to a better quality of life and less issues.”

    Well done! You’ve managed to work out something that has been known for years!

    “Perhaps it is a “co-morbid” condition – oh wait, that’s right, I don’t understand that word.”

    Correct on both counts.

    Sullivan – I seriously don’t think MJ is playing. He clearly holds his beliefs rather sincerely. That he has failed at every oppourtunity, and failed miserably, and been incompetant in every attempt to validate his beliefs, and crassly contradicted himself at every turn, is not a sign that he is ‘playing’.

    Just a sign that he’s an idiot.

  8. Dedj February 18, 2010 at 15:26 #

    “Martijn Dekker, I hear a few puzzled voices ask? (metaphorically that is, don’t want a dx of Sz do I?) Well I wonder where the ‘curebie’ anti vax crowd place him in the pantheon of ‘ND’, because you don’t see his name appearing in the blogosphere much, which just goes to demonstrate not all the action takes place in this rather artificial arena.”

    Indeed, it’s amazing just how much members of the ‘anti-ND’ movement rely solely or exclusivly on what is written in the bloggo-sphere, sometimes not even bothering to do a quick google to see who the bloggers are and what they do in meatspace.

    One quick example was when yourself and Dinah were accused of being ‘know nothing, do nothings’ by our award winning autism advocate friend, who mysteriously failed to reappear when Dinah indicated that she had a publication history that predates his involvement in autism adovacacy by as much as a clear decade.

    The annonymity and relative safety of the bloggosphere allows people who are totally out of the network in meatspace to present, or being seen as, core members of any movement. It allows any person, no matter how rashly thought out thier blogs are, to have a voice.

    It never occurs to the ‘anti-ND’ people that maybe, just maybe, the content of blogs and web posts written by random youths might, just might, be non-representative of what goes on in conferences, conventions, formal discussions and formal advocacy business.

  9. MJ February 19, 2010 at 00:36 #


    Like Sullivan, you really should not try to play word games. The phrase “anti-treatment” simply means against or opposed to treatment. It does not automatically imply that one is against every possible treatment that has ever or will ever exist. If a person promotes one form of treatment and actively discourages another, they are “anti-treatment” with respect to the later treatment.

    Since I did not care to list out each individual treatment separately, I used a generic “anti-treatment” to represent the collective whole and to express the idea that the ND movement is opposed to the majority of the evidence based treatments for the core symptoms and problems of autism (such as ABA).

    I tend to define my words the dictionary does and how they are used in common usage – how about you?

    “Unless you can show it is intrinsically linked to thier autism, there’s no reason why autism advocates ‘should’ focus on anything other than autism issues during their autism work.”

    You clearly missed the entire point of what I was saying. I am not saying this – researchers from the Kennedy Krieger Institute and John Hopkins have suggested that there is could be a specific problem with low cholesterol in children with autism.

    Go look it up.

    “Just a sign that he’s an idiot”

    Thank you, coming from you that is a complement.

    I seem to notice a pattern in your responses. You don’t actually reply to any idea but rather say thing things like “self-evidently and obviously and clearly a logically inconsistent and rather stupid argument” which is just an obnoxious way of saying that you disagree. The few ideas that you do respond to the substance (cholesterol), you clearly do not grasp the ideas being expressed.

    If I were the sort to call people names, as you seen inclined to do, I think I would have to call you uneducated or possibly crass.

    But seriously, point out what example of where I “failed at every opportunity” or “crassly contradicted [myself]” or was ” incompetant in every attempt to validate [my] beliefs” – just one will do. Just highlight my exact words that I said that you believe fit any of your criteria. If I am as much of an idiot as you say, you should have no trouble finding many examples from what I written above.

    • Sullivan February 19, 2010 at 02:01 #


      I would suggest that you are not holding the moral high ground when it comes to claims of word games. But, then again, it could be just your proven ability to misunderstand what others say or to look beyond your prejudices to actually listen to what is said. Either way, I find the comment ironic.

      If you wish to have a debate about ABA with another blogger by proxy, I won’t be drawn into it. I’ve commented some on ABA here. If you say that the ND movement is against the “majority” of evidence based treatments, I would suggest you offer multiple examples. I apologize that you won’t be given the opportunity to do so here. Consider it advice for the future.

      I have no doubt that autistics (as with everyone) can have nutritional deficiencies. This has been discussed repeatedly here and elsewhere. Cholesterol has been discussed by at least one group that I am aware of at KK. They found that a small subset of autistics have a deficiency, as I recall. It is a good line of research and one that could bring a significant benefit. However, there is a difference between “small subset” and “in children with autism”.

      Are there possible problems with supplements? Absolutely. There are groups that promote huge doses of vitamin A. Another supplement common in the alt-med community is known to cause seizures in seizure prone individuals if given at too high a dose too quickly. That, by the way, is from communications I’ve had with a clinician at Kennedy Kreiger myself. Unfortunately, the propensity of the DAN or DAN-like groups to misuse any information given forced him to remove the discussion of supplements from a talk he gave.

      And, therein lies one of the great problems. The fact that good information helps, misinformation causes harm.

      If you want to fight with people about treating legitimate medical conditions, there are places where you can do so. If you want people to discuss how evil neurodiverse proponents are and how they don’t believe in any treatment, there are places for that as well. The discussion makes no sense here. I am open to discussing real topics, but I don’t see the point in fighting your prejudices or your complaints with other people.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: