Archive | Advocacy RSS feed for this section

US Supreme Court Ruling on Special Education

24 Jun

The US Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Forest Grove School District v T.A. The question was fairly simple: can a child be granted a private placement (outside of the state educational system) if that child doesn’t receive any services from the district?

The district in question argued that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) states that a placement could not be paid for (or in this case reimbursed as the parents were footing the bill at first) if:

“previously received special education or related services under the [school’s] authority.”

The family argued that the key provision of the IDEA is the concept of FAPE: the school system must provide a Free Appropriate Public Education. If the district has no appropriate placements, how can the parents be expected to place their child with the district?

The US Supreme Court sided with the parents:

Held: IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide a FAPE and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special-education services through the public school.


Kristina Chew has covered this already at Change.Org, as have others.

This is exactly the sort of topic we as a community and as a part of a greater disability community should be discussing. It is vitally important to those with children in the US. I hope that such decisions will have impact internationally as well.

Transition into adulthood – problems for autistics

20 Jun

The recent success of the Autism Bill is in part due to a decade of patient work by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism APPGA

is a formal cross-party backbench group of MPs and Peers who share an interest in autism and Asperger syndrome. It was set up in February 2000. Its role is to campaign in Parliament for greater awareness of autism and Asperger syndrome, and to lobby the Government for improved services for people with autism and Asperger syndrome, and their carers.

APPGA has just released an important report on Transition into Adulthood about that awkward period when young people with autism are coming to the end of their education and their parents are trying to obtain a package of suitable services to sustain them into adult life. The APPGA report lends support to the recent finding by the National Audit Office that services for autistic adults are in a parlous state. It should come as no surprise that the inadequacies of adult provision often result in an unsatisfactory transition.

At present all school children with a Statement of special educational need in England and Wales (there are parallel but differing arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland) are entitled to an annual review. At 14 years of age this becomes the Transition Review and it is the duty of the local authority to make arrangements for a smooth transition to adult services when the child leaves school. This works well enough for many pupils with severe learning difficulties who often stay at school until they are 19. Their transition to adult services comes at around the same time as they leave home and move to supported living in group homes or other residential settings and maybe employment or further education.

But most children leave school at 16 and adult services do not kick in until they are 18. Many children are left in limbo. Young people with autism, especially those without a Statement frequently lose out. If you have not got a Statement you do not get a transitional review. Even with a Statement things can still go wrong, especially for those in mainstream education. According to APPGA

Frequently, decisions about a young person’s next placement are made only when they are approaching the end of their schooling or, worse still, after they have left school. In the vast majority of cases where transition planning is taking place, it is happening without the involvement of adult social services. Contributors stressed how vital it is to address this. A recurrent theme was the mental health problems which developed, in part, as a result of these failures.

Other significant findings were that

  • Wrong expectations could derail the transition process. Low expectations became a self-fulfilling prophecy for some while unrealistic expectations placed on young people who lacked obvious cognitive impairments set them up to fail.
  • Inter-agency working could be a nightmare, especxially when no one agency took responsibility for leading the process.
  • Professionals lacked the necessary training in autism to inform their contribution to transition planning.
  • Parents and young people did not have adequate information about the available options.
  • Transition was often funding led. i.e it was a bureaucratic measure to allocate the budget and not a tool to identify the needs of young people.

    • APPGA’s recommendations will have no statutory power unless they are included in the statutory guidance that the government is planning to issue later this year. It is important that they make it into the guidance, especially as they independently reiterate many of the recommendations of the National Audit Office. So once more I urge readers in the UK to visit the NAS website and learn how you can contribute to the government consultation on adult services.

    Campaigning by the NAS and its allies is beginning to pay off after years of patient work offering detailed and practical ways forward for government and local councils to meet the challenge of autism. At last they are listening and seem to have the will to do something positive. Make sure you have your say and help to make it count.

    Tags: , ,

    A vaccinated vs unvaccinated study

    6 Jun

    For as long as I can recall, this has been one of the clarion calls of the autism/antivaccine/pro-disease groups – that the only way to know if vaccines cause autism is to do a ‘simple’ study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. Indeed, Generation Rescue carried out an ill-fated phone survey that in reality meant absolutely nothing so badly was it put together and carried out. But even if it _had_ been well designed and carried out the results were not good for pro-disease anti-vaccine autism believers:

    Number of boys and girls with Aspergers
    Unvaccinated: 1% of total
    Partially vaccinated: 2% of total
    Fully vaccinated: 1%
    Fully and Partially combined: 2%

    Conclusion: you are 1% more likely to have Aspergers if you have been partially vaccinated than unvaccinated. If you are fully vaccinated your chance of being Aspergers is no greater than if you were unvaccinated.

    Number of boys and girls with PDDNOS
    Unvaccinated: 2% of total
    Partially vaccinated: 2% of total
    Fully vaccinated: 1%
    Fully and Partially combined: 1%

    Conclusion: you are 1% more likely to have PDDNOS if you are unvaccinated. If you are fully vaccinated your chance of being PDDNOS is 1% less than if you were unvaccinated.

    Number of boys and girls with Autism
    Unvaccinated: 2% of total
    Partially vaccinated: 4% of total
    Fully vaccinated: 2%
    Fully and Partially combined: 2%

    Conclusion: you are 2% more likely to have autism if you have been partially vaccinated. If you are fully vaccinated your chance of being autistic is no greater than if you were unvaccinated.

    Number of boys and girls with all ASD’s
    Unvaccinated: 4% of total
    Partially vaccinated: 6% of total
    Fully vaccinated: 3%
    Fully and Partially combined: 3%

    Conclusion: you are 2% more likely to have an ASD if you have been partially vaccinated. If you are fully vaccinated your chance of being autistic is 1% less than if you were unvaccinated.

    Overall conclusion: the best way to avoid being diagnosed with an ASD is to be fully vaccinated according to the CDC schedule.

    And in September of last year, you may recall the announcement of yet another study that demonstrated there was no link between MMR and autism. During the press conference that launched that study David Kirby asked the lead author – Ian Lipkin – what his thoughts were about a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. His answer was:

    http://webjay.org/flash/dark_player

    Very difficult if not impossible.

    Given that, the US NVAC vaccine safety group released a draft of their latest thinking on the issue of vaccine safety which touched on the idea of doing this sort of study. The entire section related to this is quoted in full below:

    Feasibility study of Vaccinated/Unvaccinated/Alternatively Vaccinated Children

    Members of the public, stakeholders, and the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) have articulated interest in a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children to determine if there are differences in health outcomes between groups with varying exposures to vaccines. The Working Group considered drafting a recommendation for an IOM review of the science, epidemiology and feasibility of studies of unvaccinated, vaccine delayed, and vaccinated children. The Writing Group Draft Document on Gaps in Research Agenda further developed this idea. The Working Group wishes to clarify several points on this topic. *First, the Working Group believes that the strongest study design, a randomized clinical trial that includes a study arm receiving no vaccine or vaccine not given in accord with the current recommended schedule, is not ethical, would not pass IRB review, and cannot be done*. The type of study that is being suggested would be an observational study of populations looking at natural variation in vaccination schedules including some children where vaccination is declined through parental intent. All children in the study should be recommended to receive the standard immunization schedule. The Working Group endorses the Writing Group’s recommendation for an external expert committee, such as the Institute of Medicine, with broad methodological, design, and ethical expertise to consider “strengths and weaknesses, ethical issues and feasibility including timelines and cost of various study designs to examine outcomes in unvaccinated, vaccine delayed and vaccinated children and report back to the NVAC.”

    The Working Group does not necessarily agree with all of the language in the Writing Group’s statement, but with its general intent. The process should be open and transparent, engaging individuals from a broad range of sectors. Considerations as outlined by the Writing Group and modified by the Working Group are as follows:

    – This review should consider strengths and weaknesses, ethical issues and feasibility including timelines and cost of various study designs and report back to the NVAC

    – Consideration should be given to broad biomedical research including laboratory studies, and animal studies.

    – Consideration should also be given to study designs comparing children vaccinated by the standard immunization schedule with unvaccinated children (by parental intention), and possibly partially vaccinated children or children vaccinated by alternative immunization schedules

    – Outcomes to assess include biomarkers of immunity and metabolic dysfunction, and outcomes including but not limited to neurodevelopmental outcomes, allergies, asthma, immune-mediated diseases, and other developmental disabilities such as epilepsy, intellectual disability and learning disabilities.

    – The inclusion of autism as an outcome is desired. This review should also consider what impact the inclusion of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) as an outcome would have on study designs and feasibility, as referenced in the IACC letter to NVAC.

    – This review should be conducted expeditiously, in a transparent manner, and involving broad public and stakeholder input.

    So, as per a straight ‘vaccinated vs unvaccinated’ study, Ian Lipkin and NVAC Working Group agree that it can’t be done in the most scientifically accurate way and even if it could, it wouldn’t be ethical due to the requirement of excluding children from vaccination.

    What they are saying is that a group like the IOM therefore should write up a feasibility study as to how such a study _could_ be done. Without this, its extremely unlikely that a vax vs unvax study will ever fly.

    Amusingly, the way that the NVAC Working Group words a possible solution – vaccinated vs unvaccinated via parental choice – sounds pretty much like the Generation Rescue phone survey. And we know how that ended up.

    ASAN Submits Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court

    2 Jun

    I have a very high level of respect for the Autism Self Advocacy Network (ASAN). They one of the few autism groups (if not the only one) that actively works with other disability organizations.

    Below is a statement from ASAN on the submission of an amicus (friend of the court) brief for a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, along with several other advocacy groups, has submitted an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Winkelman v. Parma City School District. The lawsuit was brought by the parents of an Autistic child who was not given the opportunity to continue receiving occupational therapy services in an Ohio school after the district had agreed that those services were necessary. The school district prepared an IEP stating only that a further assessment of the need for the services would be completed.

    The Supreme Court is seeking to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts of Appeals, which have taken conflicting approaches to the question of whether a court’s analysis of the content of an IEP should consider only the written IEP or whether the court has discretion to consider other evidence as well.

    Parents play a major role in developing an IEP, which is analogous to a contract with the school district specifying the educational services to be provided to the child. Related services such as occupational therapy also must be specified in the IEP pursuant to federal law as set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(4). School districts are prohibited from making unilateral decisions about a child’s IEP.

    Consistent with the general rule that in contract law, evidence outside the written terms of the contract ordinarily is not admissible in court, three Courts of Appeals have ruled that only the written IEP should be considered in determining whether it is adequate. However, three other Courts of Appeals, including the court from which the Winkelman case was appealed, reached the opposite conclusion in deciding that an IEP lacking the required specific content could nevertheless be found valid based on consideration of other evidence.

    The Autistic Self Advocacy Network is asking the Supreme Court to rule that when courts analyze the content of an IEP to determine its adequacy, only the written IEP should be considered. A school district should not be allowed to omit required content from a child’s IEP and then to assert later that it intended to supplement the IEP. Allowing districts to postpone decisions on the content of an IEP can lead to considerable delay in providing occupational therapy and other necessary services. The educational well-being of Autistic children and other students with disabilities is best served when they receive therapy without interruption or delay.

    ASAN contact information:

    Ari Ne’eman
    President
    The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
    1660 L Street, NW, Suite 700
    Washington, DC 20036
    http://www.autisticadvocacy.org
    732.763.5530

    Autism Minnesota Somali community see through anti-vaccine brigade

    29 May

    In November last year, David Kirby wrote a Huffington Post entry about the Minnesota Somali autism situation saying:

    In fact, one of the most obvious “environmental” differences between Minnesota and Somalia is mass vaccination…

    And of course, the Age of Autism site, made many proclamations about the Somali community and vaccines:

    Somali parents, I offer this advice as the father of a son with autism. Like many of you, I watched my normal son descend into autism after receiving his vaccines. I genuinely believe too many vaccines given too soon in our children’s lives is the primary trigger for the autism epidemic

    However it seems that maybe the Minnesotan Somali autism population have done their own reading and come to their own conclusions.

    The Somali American Autism Foundation is a new-ish Foundation. The domain name was created in Feb 2009 for example. Pretty much in the middle of the period that the Age of Autism crew were waxing lyrical about standing shoulder to shoulder with their Somalian friends in the battle against vaccines.

    One of the founders of the SAAF, Idil Abdull, has this to say:

    When my son Abdullahi was first diagnosed with autism at age three, I felt angry, sad and confused because I have never heard of the word Autism before. I had no idea what to do next and how to help my son. A mother’s job is to help her child with whatever life throws at them, but when the doctor told me there is no known cause and cure for autism, I felt helpless and hopeless.

    I remember crying for what seemed forever. After I realized to be thankful that god blessed me with a beautiful son, I saw the hope in him and the help he needed from his mother. I rolled up my sleeves and went to work by reading every autism book I could find and going online for any help to give my son the hope he and countless others need and deserve. I would not change a thing about my son Abdullahi. He is a happy and loving child and I thank god everyday for him. There is HELP and There is HOPE not just for my son but for all of our children.

    Now thats a pretty fantastic, positive and…yep, neurodiverse, type of message don’t you think?

    But there’s more.

    The SAAF website carries a detailed explanation of what a vaccine is and how they were first started. It takes away a lot of the negative mystery and states:

    There is a strong minority of people who believe that the increasing rates of autism and learning disabilities in the U.S. are related to its mandatory immunization program. There is still no credible evidence of a correlation between autism and vaccinations. This position is supported by the World Health Organization, the CDC, The AMA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    They then recommend that a parent talk to their physician. What simple, credible and good advice.

    I’d like to welcome The SAAF to the growing community of autism organisations that are clearly fed up with a constant preoccupation with a disproven hypothesis. Maybe it would be a good idea for SAAF and the newly created Autism Science Foundation to talk together.

    Bravo Huffington Post

    28 May

    Yep, you read correctly. I’m not even sarcastic.

    Guess who the new Huffington Post blogger is? Ari Ne’eman of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

    Ari’s first post is a good one, Health Care Reform and the Disability Community. Ari has done an excellent job of keeping focus on the real issues facing the disability community in general and the autism community in specific. Ari recognizes that we in the autism community are a part of a greater whole–the disability community.

    Ari’s post is quite thorough, quite well thought out. He is factual and logical.

    Take a moment and leave a comment–let him (and the Huffington Post) know how much we appreciate him fighting for our communities.

    Why Generation Rescue shouldn’t be on the IACC

    27 May

    I have been very critical of the lobbying efforts of Generation Rescue. I have found their actions to be far from helpful in the struggle to obtain quality research for people with autism. One issue I haven’t covered is the fact that Generation Rescue has been lobbying hard for a seat on the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

    The IACC, as you might guess, coordinates research efforts amongst various government agencies. They do this by creating a “strategic plan” which puts forth initiatives that should be funded. For example, one “short term goal” listed on the Strategic Plan is:

    Launch at least two studies to assess and characterize variation in adults living with ASD (e.g., social and daily functioning, demographic, medical and legal status) by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $5,000,000 over 3 years.

    We need a lot more research like that if we are to serve our existing adult population and prepare for the kids of today to transition into adulthood.

    This sort of research, oddly enough, isn’t supported by many of the autism advocacy organizations. Instead, they see the IACC as a pathway to their singular goal: recognition of the supposed link between vaccines and autism.

    The fact of the matter is simple–Generation Rescue should not hold a seat on the IACC. The reasons are simple, and are below:

    1) Generation Rescue’s position is already represented on the IACC.

    I have never heard any complaints from the Generation Rescue team about Lyn Redwood. Lyn Redwood represents, quite vocally mind you, the “autism is caused by vaccines” segment of the community. She pretty much dominates much of the discussion, steering it towards vaccines as much as possible.

    Ms. Redwood is ably assisted in steering all discussions towards vaccines in one of the working groups by Mark Blaxill. Again, I have never heard anyone from Generation Rescue say, “Dang, that Mark Blaxill just doesn’t get our point of view!”

    So, if the Generation Rescue position is already represented, why give GR an official position?

    2) Just because there are multiple organizations, doesn’t mean that the IACC has to include them all.

    Besides their position on vaccines, what do Generation Rescue, Safe Minds, TACA and the National Autism Association have in common?

    You can’t join them and vote for their leadership.

    I just see these as different faces to the same overall autism group. Actually, I see them as mostly vaccine oriented advocacy groups, not autism advocacy groups, but the point is the same: why give each of these groups their own seat on the IACC.

    Think for a moment—why should a few people be allowed to create an “organization” and ask for separate representation? If each subgroup wants to have control over their own budgets and give each member big titles, that’s just fine. But, when it comes to representation on a government body, why should every faction of what is, really, one big vaccines-cause-autism group be given a seat at the table?

    Yes, this is much like item (1)—all of these groups already have their opinions represented by Lyn Redwood. There is no need or value in giving them more seats on the IACC.

    3) This would lead to even more wasted time.

    The IACC is a group that has very limited time to work on a research plan. Work being the operative word. Already, a LOT of time is taken up carefully crafting each and every phrase that might give credence to the vaccines-cause-autism story.

    Imagine now if even more time were taken up in these discussions. Please, no. There is a great deal of expertise represented by the scientists on the IACC. We as taxpayers and as members of the greater autism community deserve to benefit from their expertise. We don’t need to hear twice as much (or more) vaccine-oriented discussions.

    4) Generation Rescue has clearly demonstrated itself to be anti-science.

    Generation Rescue’s recent “study” on vaccines and health outcomes around the world was, in a word, dishonest. The fact that they would promote such a manipulation of facts should disqualify them from sitting on a research based committee.

    They either don’t understand research, or they are willing to misuse “research” to promote a political agenda. Either way, I don’t see why good researchers in the field should have to share a committee with Generation Rescue. Moreover, I really don’t see how Generation Rescue can lead the way in directing autism research given their demonstrated lack of understanding of the principles of research.

    5) They don’t want their voice heard, they want to be able to outvote the scientists.

    As noted above, Generation Rescue’s positions are very clearly communicated on the IACC already by Ms. Redwood. What Generation Rescue wants is a large enough voting block to outvote the scientists on the committee.

    Read that again—they want to outvote scientists on a committee designed to coordinate research.

    Sorry, you don’t vote down science.

    And, once again, why should all the different heads of the same beast (TACA/Generation Rescue/SafeMinds/NAA) be treated as separate entities?

    6) They are rude.

    The culture of Generation Rescue is not one of working as a team with others. You either agree with their position, or people shout “BullShit” loudly at you.

    Yes, there is already rude behavior on the IACC. Mark Blaxill, for one, has spent considerable amounts of time calling anyone who disagrees with his untenable position on mercury “Epidemic Denialists”. We don’t need more of that, and Generation Rescue goes well past that level on the impoliteness scale.

    Sorry, I just can’t find any advantage to having Generation Rescue represented on the IACC. I can see a LOT of disadvantages, though

    You are neurodiverse….

    23 May

    We don’t all think the same way. We just don’t. There is a “diversity” in our thought processes. Our neurology.

    So, I find it interesting when people talk about “those neurodiverse” or in some other way try to make it an “us vs. them” subject. As Jake and Elwood said,

    Some things that make us all the same. You, me them, everybody, everybody.

    In this case, it is our differences that make us the same. Everybody is neurodiverse. Everybody’s mind thinks just a little different from anyone else’s on this planet. And, that is what makes us all neurodiverse.

    The problem comes up when we move from “Neurodiverse” to the “Neurodiverisity movement”.

    As Kev notes in his recent post, there is no organization or official position on what is Neurodiveristy. But I think the basic idea is clear:

    Just as there is a diversity amongst people by gender, race, ethnicity, and culture, to name but a few ways we vary as a people–just as there are those diversity categories, we also vary by neurology.

    And, just as we need to respect each other even though we come from diverse gender, racial, ethnic, cultural, and other backgrounds, we need to respect each other even though we think in different ways.

    That’s not so hard a concept, is it?

    The analogy to other diversity movements is very clear. For example, no one way of thinking is better than any other.

    This is where many people get confused. They say, “Neurodiversity proponents don’t see autism as a disability”. When one says, “no one way of thinking is better than any other”, that is a far cry from saying, “no one way of thinking makes life easier than any other”. The question is, if life is made easier for you because of your neurology, does that make you “normal”? More importantly, if your neurology makes your life easier, doesn’t that give you the responsibility to help out those who may need a hand?

    The thing is, neurodiversity is about human rights. The question isn’t, “Do you believe in neurodiveristy”, but, rather, “How can you not believe in neurodiversity”.

    Australian Autism Group block autistics

    20 May

    I got this from an online friend and member of ASAN Australia.

    A4 LOCKS OUT AUTISTIC MEMBERS

    STATEMENT CONCERNING A4 – AUTISM ASPERGER ADVOCACY AUSTRALIA

    ASAN AUSTRALIA understands from its members that as of today all Autistic members have been exclude from the Steering Committee of A4 (Autism Asperger Advocacy Australia) which has now been renamed the A4 Advisory Group. Convener of the A4 Advisory Group Bob Buckley states in an email to all A4 members:

    “A majority group decided to separate itself from a minority dissenting group (formerly in A4 SC) who do not accept and object to long-standing polices and practices of the A4 SC.”

    This minority dissenting group just happens to contain all of the people with a diagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder that sat on the A4 Steering Committee up until 18/5/09. This minority group has long been battling to be part of the national voice that is A4 and now finds themselves excluded from the very group that once claimed to represent them.

    ASAN AUSTRALIA finds this situation unacceptable, reprehensible in fact. We suggest that in light of this move A4 not be seen as a legitimate voice for those on the autism spectrum. Nothing about us without us.

    An ASAN AUSTRALIA Convener can be contacted for comment via autisticadvocacy@gmail.com

    This is a very silly move. I’ve emailed A4 to see if they have any comment regarding the issue.

    Jenny McCarthy’s son was never autistic?

    20 May

    A provocative piece in the National Post suggests that very thing.

    It is not even certain that her child ever had autism; neurologists have pointed out that her description of the symptoms, and recovery, are more consistent with a rare disorder, Landau-Kleffner Syndrome. Ms. McCarthy may thus be trumpeting a “cure” for a disease of which she has no parental experience.

    More than a little interested I tracked down this Letter to Neurology Today.

    In After Vaccine-Autism Case Settlement, MDs Urged to Continue Recommending Vaccines (June 5), Dawn Fallik correctly cites Jenny McCarthy as a celebrity fanning the flames of the vaccine-autism link. McCarthy also makes parents think that autism can be cured with unproven treatments – as she claims is the case with her son – documented in her much publicized book, Louder than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism (Dutton 2007).

    Unfortunately, what the public does not realize as well as perhaps McCarthy is that her son was most likely misdiagnosed with autism in the first place. His disorder began with seizures and, subsequently, with the seizures treated, he improved. This would be more consistent with Landau-Kleffner syndrome, which often is misdiagnosed as autism.

    Daniel B. Rubin, MD, PhD

    OK, so next stop Landau-Kleffner syndrome.

    It is characterized by the sudden or gradual development of aphasia (the inability to understand or express language) and an abnormal electroencephalogram (EEG). LKS affects the parts of the brain that control comprehension and speech. The disorder usually occurs in children between the ages of 5 and 7 years. Typically, children with LKS develop normally but then lose their language skills. While many of the affected individuals have clinical seizures, some only have electrographic seizures, including electrographic status epilepticus of sleep (ESES).

    …..

    The syndrome can be difficult to diagnose and may be misdiagnosed as autism, pervasive developmental disorder, hearing impairment, learning disability, auditory/verbal processing disorder, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation, childhood schizophrenia, or emotional/behavioral problems.

    And is Rubin right? Did Jenny McCarthy’s son Evan’s illness begin with epilepsy?

    “I found Evan seizing in his crib,” she told ABC’s Deborah Roberts. “He was foaming at the mouth and his eyes rolled back.”

    McCarthy rushed 2-year-old Evan to the hospital. After a few days of multiple seizures, doctors concluded that Evan had epilepsy, but McCarthy was not convinced. Her maternal instinct told her that something was still wrong.

    Angry and skeptical of the medical advice she had been given, McCarthy went to a second neurologist who gave her an earth-shattering new diagnosis: Her son has autism.

    So yeah he is. Evan’s first presentation was epilepsy.

    Not exactly enough to give anything approaching a definite answer but still, interesting. I wonder who diagnosed Evan.

    ← Older Entries
    Newer Entries →