Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

IACC services subcommittee meeting tomorrow

23 Jul

The services subcommittee doesn’t get the blogging attention as the full committee meeting. No chance for a discussion of “epidemics” or vaccines. It is well worth the time to listen in, for whatever time you can, to see how this process works. Even more, it is well worth being informed so that you can get involved.

I just got this via email:

A Town Hall Meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Services Subcommittee

A Town Hall meeting of the IACC Services Subcommittee will take place on Friday, July 24, 2009 from 10:45 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. CT at the 2009 Autism Society National Conference

Pheasant Run Resort and Spa
4051 East Main Street
St. Charles, IL 60174

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available in the main room and overflow room. The meeting  will begin with a 30 minute presentation by members of the IACC, followed by an open microphone session in which comments may be shared on topics related to services for people with ASD. Topics of particular interest include: Questions 5 and 6 of the IACC Strategic Plan for ASD Research: “Where can I turn for services?” and “What does the future hold?” Additional suggested topics: Services for adults, community issues, family support, school services, provider services, infrastructure, evidence-based services and supports, health and safety, early diagnosis, transition to adulthood, therapies and treatments, and health and dental care.

The latest information about the meeting, including online registration and remote access can be found at: http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2009/services-subcommittee-town-hall-mtg-announcement-July24.shtml. The meeting flyer can also be found on the IACC events web page.

Remote participation: Written comments on ASD services issues are welcome in advance, during and after the meeting until July 31, 2009 at: iaccservices@mail.nih.gov. Written comments received before or during the meeting may be shared with the audience by the moderators as time permits.

For more information about the IACC, please visit www.iacc.hhs.gov.

The IACC also can now be found on Twitter (www.twitter.com/IACC_Autism).

The Contact Person for this meeting is:

Ms. Lina Perez
Office of Autism Research Coordination
National Institute of Mental Health, NIH
6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC
Room 8200
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301-443-6040
IACCServices@mail.nih.gov

Autism research funding: who is paying and how much?

21 Jul

Ever wonder who is funding autism research and where the money is being spent? If you were watching/listening to the IACC meeting this week, you would have answers to a lot of these questions.

To answer the most basic question, the current annual expenditure on autism research in the U.S. is $225,000,000.

Most of us assume (and we are right) that in the US, the Government is the biggest source of research funding. But as it turns out, fully 35% of the research funding for autism in the U.S. is from private sources. That works out to over $78M in autism research funding is from private sources. Pretty impressive.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to who is the largest private source? Autism Speaks would be a good guess. It was mine. A.S. is a respectable second with $31M, but the number one private source of autism funding is the Simons Foundation, with $43M per year.

In case you want to see the entire breakdown of funding sources, here it is:

Autism Funding by Agency

Autism Funding by Agency

So, now we know where the money is coming from. The next question is “where is it going?” There are pages of detailed information on that in the research portfolio discussed at the IACC, but let’s take the summary view. In specific, NIH collated the research by category. They used the categories from the Strategic Plan:

I. When Should I Be Concerned?
II. How Can I Understand What Is Happening?
III. What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?
IV. Which Treatments And Interventions Will Help?
V. Where Can I Turn For Services?
VI. What Does The Future Hold?

All of these categories are important and each of us will have a different view on the priorities. The issues I want to see get more funding involve figuring out how best to support autistics. In order to do so, I feel the research community has to fill a big gap in their knowledge when it comes to adult autistics.

Or, to put it in Strategic Plan categories, I think category V (where can I turn for services) and, mostly, VI (What does the future hold) need more attention and funding. As autism research funding grows, we should be expanding funding in these areas.

How is funding divided now? Well, here’s a pie chart:

Pie chart showing how autism research funding is distributed.

Pie chart showing how autism research funding is distributed.

Obviously the funding agencies don’t agree with me on priorities. Category V gets 1% of the funding, and category VI gets 5%.

Let’s put this another way: there are by some estimates roughly 1.5M autistics in the U.S. (I know that’s debated, but let’s go with it for a rough estimate). We are spending about $9M on understanding adults with autism. Roughly, $6 per autistic. Does that make sense?

Or, to put it another way, we have 300M people in the U.S.. Each of us is spending, what, $0.005 (one-half cent) a year on studying adults with autism? Surely we can do better than that.

It is worth stopping for a moment to acknowledge that the Strategic Plan is just getting started. The funding levels shown in the pie chart are going to change as the Plan is implemented. But, will research on adults be given high priority?

There are a lot of blog posts and news stories lately talking about how we as a society are not prepared for the “tidal wave” of autistics about to become adults. If that is your position, why not call for better research on adults? Why not call for the sorts of papers that will help you and your soon-to-be-adult children advocate for better services?

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.

Autism Progresses in Parliament

28 May

A few weeks ago I attended the Northern Regional Forum of the National Autistic Society. The general feeling was that all those working around the private member’s bill on Autism then before Parliament had done a fantastic job. The government was talking to us and, more importantly, listening to us. The Bill of course would never become law but we could expect signficant concessions from the government in exchange for the Bill being dropped.

Instead the government proposed to delete the existing clauses in th eBill and replace them with amendments of its own covering

  • Transition Planning
  • Diagnosis
  • Identification and Assessment
  • Provision of Services
  • Training of Professionals
  • Local Authority/PCT Leadership

These amendments were acceptable to the Bill’s supporters and it will now progress through Parliament with government support. It is thus more closely focused on adult proivision. Provisions relating to children, including diagnosis, data collection and planning services will be enacted via regulations and guidance issued by the government a part of its Children and Young People’s Plan.

There is still a lot of work to be done. The government consultation that I wrote about last month is continuing and it is even more important now for people to respond.

Meanwhile, another private member’s bill from John Bercow on special educational needs that only came 19th out of 20 in a poll of MPs has failed to become law but the government has given assurances that it is making progress on meeting the commitments outlined in the Bill. The NAs was again involved in drafting the Bill and lobbying for its support.

the National Autism Society, which had worked with Bercow on the Bill, said it was satisfied that the Bill had achieved some success.

NAS policy manager Beth Reid said: “This Bill has helped to raise the profile of many important issues facing SEN children. It has put increased focus on making sure the right measures are in place to ensure they are support properly.”

However, Reid said more work was needed to bring down the high number of SEN children [whch contains a disproportionate number of autistic children] excluded from school, something Bercow’s Bill had sought to address.

This is important work. These are not grandiose schemes for combating autism, defeating autism or ramping up research efforts into possible causes and cures. But they are honest attempts to improve the lives of autistic children and adults. The NAS and its allies will continue to monitor the government response to ensure that its deeds do in fact match up to the commitments it has made in response to our campaigning.

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”.

Autism community need to learn lesson

22 May

As is accepted by most rational people, autism is a largely genetic difference, albeit with a likely environmental component. Over the last 10 years or so a seemingly increasingly irrational desire to blame vaccines for causing autism has been coupled with a similarly irrational ‘cure at all cost’ mentality. The subsequent parent driven engine has resulted in autistic kids being exposed to shysters, snake oil salesman and out and out quacks selling their own version on dangerous exploitation.

However, in a revealing picture of what the ‘cure at all cost’ mentality might be doing not only to autistic people but to the human race in general we could do no worse than to look at recent discoveries in another genetic based difference – Down Syndrome:

A gene that’s present in the extra chromosome people with Down syndrome protects this population from getting many types of cancers, according to a study published in the journal Nature Wednesday.

…..

The answer lies in a gene called Dscr1, which is one of the genes present in Down syndrome causing chromosome 21. Since people with Down syndrome have an extra copy of this chromosome, they also have an extra copy of Dscr1. Researchers studied the gene in mice with human cells and found that it limits the growth of blood vessels that tumors feed on.

All the years that people with Down Syndrome have taken abuse, been put down and – most ironically of all – had pre-natal testing performed that has resulted in a drop of Down’s babies. And now it seems they might hold the key to destroying at least some forms of cancer. Imagine if we only found that out after the last Down’s adult had died?

Imagine what we might find out if we start looking at research that works _with_ autistic people. Imagine what we might lose if we decide to plow ahead with a ‘cure at all cost’ mentality.

Autistic boy killed with ‘chemical cosh’

21 May

Disability Scoop reports today on the awful story of an autistic child killed at a group home:

Denis Maltez, who had autism, died in 2007 at age 12 after being restrained by staff members employed by the group home where he lived in Miami. An autopsy determined that he was experiencing serotonin syndrome, a condition where the body produces too much serotonin, the chemical that regulates a person’s mood. The syndrome can be caused by a combination of psychiatric medications.

….

“This is a clear case of a 12-year-old child who perished because he was given a lethal combination of off-label, dangerous, anti-psychotic drugs to control his behavior without appropriate consent, administration and supervision,” said Howard Talenfeld, Quesada’s [the boy’s mother] attorney. “Tragically, this case is one of many cases where foster children and developmentally disabled children are given powerful drugs to control their behavior instead of utilizing appropriate behavioral interventions.”

With echoes of the inappropriate ‘care’ dolled out to Jesse Moores, this seems to me another example of a young person with special needs treated with scant thought or care. Its sickening that there seem to be so many of these stories on both sides of the Atlantic recently. I sincerely believe that there needs to be an _international_ coalition of voices – made up primarily of autistic people and their immediate families – to offer oversight on how autistic people are treated. This cannot be allowed to continue. Closing down homes, jailing perpetrators etc _after_ the fact is all well and good. We need something proactive not reactive.

A Neurodiversity FAQ

17 May

Following Ari Ne’eman’s interview in Newsweek being published yesterday, a storm of blog posts about him, autism and neurodiversity in general have appeared. There is a series of comments on the Newsweek forum featuring that bastion of idiocy and bigotry, John Best and sadly, even someone I respect a great deal, Jonathan Mitchell, has stooped to equating autism with sexual abusers. With that in mind, I want to re-post (with slight edits) an old post of mine about what I see neurodiversity as.

Proviso: I am not a spokesperson for any other person and/or group. The term ‘neurodiversity’ did not originate with me. What follows is my personal opinion and what I believe the concept of neurodiversity represents. I believe I voice opinions common to many in the neurodiversity group but I may well be wrong. Sometimes I refer to ‘we’ and sometimes ‘I’. When I refer to ‘we’ I think I am repeating the consensus of neurodiversitiy opinion but bear in mind I could well be wrong.

*1) Neurodiversity proponents are anti-parent.*

False. I’m a parent. I’m parent to 3 kids of whom two are NT and one is autistic. I’ve never felt anyone in the ‘neurodiversity crowd’ is anti me. Kathleen Seidel is a parent. Camille Clark is a parent. Anne Bevington is a parent.

*2) AutAdvo makes up the entire population of Neurodiversity proponents.*

False. There are literally hundreds of websites with thousands of participating autistics of all ‘levels’. The vast majority advocate acceptance. There are also a very large number of NT parents who advocate Neurodiversity. The desire to ‘cure at all costs’ autism is heavily weighted towards North America.

*3) Neurodiversity proponents say we should not treat our kids.*

False. This is one of the biggest points of contention. The issue is one of autism (the main point) versus comorbidities (side points). See the WikiPedia definition of comorbidity. What are some comorbidities? Gastric problems, ADHD, ADD, Depression, migrane. Why would you imagine we don’t want you to treat these things? These things are not autism. They are comorbidities of autism. They cannot be used to illustrate or define autism as they are not common to every autistic.

Don’t take my word for it. Go ask the Doctor who diagnosed your child.

We see your error as the failure to differentiate between the comorbidity and the autism. To us, one is treatable. The other is not. We do not fight for your child’s right to have gastric issues.

You see our error as trying to prevent your child being treated. My own daughter receives PECS and Speech Therapy. I would not stand in any parents way who wanted to alleviate the suffering of their kids. Having terrible constipation is suffering. Having a different kind of thought process is not.

*4) Neurodiversity proponents who are autistic are different than my child.*

True. They are mostly adults. Your kids are kids. However I don’t think thats your point. You believe that all autistic Neurodiversity proponents are ‘high functioning’. This is untrue, both now and historically. The facts are that for a lot of the autistic adults in the Neurodiversity movement their diagnosis was ‘low functioning’ when they were kids. But people grow and progress. Autism doesn’t stop progress, it just sets a different timetable for it. These adults are living breathing proof.

*5) Neurodiversity proponents are full of hate.*

I was bemused to read posts that castigated us for hate speech. Here’s an excerpt from an email I was sent in the year 2005 from someone who hid their identity. This person (who had a Bellsouth IP address) had an in-depth knowledge of Evidence of Harm and although they never said so, that they came from EoH is beyond doubt – I received this email to my Yahoo spam account immediately after making a few posts myself on EoH.

Your retard daughter should just be fucking put down – shes no autist. Little bitch.

And racism? A member of Generation Rescue (or so they claimed) told me to:

…sit next to the nearest Arab with a backpack.

Alluding, of course, to the recent London suicide bombings, this person makes racist generalisations about Arabs as well as wishing death on me.

Ex-Generation Rescue Rescue Angel John Best Jr [John has pointed out that he is now no longer a member of GR] has said that all parents of autistics who don’t chelate their kids are child abusers. Lujene Clarke of NoMercury told me that I was mentally ill because I said I had autistic relatives. My EoH debut was preceded by EoH list members referring to me as an idiot. I’ve been told I’m in the pay of Pharma companies, that I’m stupid, that I’ll go to Hell, that I’m in denial. My autistic friends have been told they are sociopathic, that they have personality disorders, that they aren’t really autistic.

*6) Neurodiversity proponents say we don’t love our kids or want whats best for them.*

False. I have no doubt that you all love your kids just as much as I love mine. I’ve not seen any neurodiversity proponent claim you hate your kids.

What we say is that we think your love for your kids has blinded you to the reality that autism itself is not a problem to overcome but a reality to share with your child. We think that in your honest desire to do the best for your child you are desperate to treat the wrong thing. We also feel that some of the things you use to treat your kids are dangerous. I’ve recently read a post by a woman enquiring about treating her child with Hydrochloric Acid. I’m on record as saying that its no-ones place to tell others what they can and cannot do to treat their kids but by that same token, I feel obliged to point the very real dangers to both your children’s health, your own bank balance and the very future of autism treatment research.

I believe the world should change for the good of my (and yours) child. I don’t believe my child should meekly inherit the mantle of ‘second class citizen’. I see it as part of my job to fight for her right to get the help she needs and at the same time, be who she is.

There are so many better fights than this one you’re on. Better education, better care, better interventions, more rights, more respect. These are the things your child (and mine) will need as they continue to grow.

We’d like you to respect your child’s autism as something unique. We’d like you to treat your child with the medical interventions for their comorbidities that they may need to progress. We’d like you to realise that your children will grow up and if they were autistic then they still will be. We’d like you to think about the strong possibility that one day the autistic adults on AutAdvo might be your kids and another set of parents who believe something passionately will be insulting them by denigrating their worth and their neurology.

You believe thiomersal did your kids harm. You may be right. I doubt it, but you may be. What it definitely didn’t do though is cause autism. This is at the heart of what makes some of us angry in respect of this issue – treat your kids if they are mercury poisoned but please stop propagating so much negative stigma with constant references to autism being mercury poisoning.

*7) So why do neurodiversity proponents say they speak for my child?*

The way I see it is like this – I and my wife know our daughter better than anyone else alive. Whilst she is a child, we speak for her in all matters. But the fact is that she is autistic. It therefore is simple common sense that other autistics have thought processes closer to those of my daughter than any NT does. They think in similar ways. Its not a case of speaking *for*, its more like having a shared reality. If one or more of my kids were gay than I would still speak for them in all matters whilst they were children but not being gay I could not share that reality in the same way as other gay people could. By virtue of their shared reality of autism our kids and autistic adults share an area of being that NT parents can never share. Like it or not, that does give them a commonality and communal existence. With that community sometimes comes a voice. Can you really say, as NT parents, that you are closer in thought process to your kids than autistic adults? When it comes to what makes autistics tick can you really say that you as NT’s know better than other autistics?

Ari Ne’eman on autism

16 May

Ari has had a quite wonderful piece on him in Newsweek. It takes on the hard questions for Ari and he answers them with the aplomb that has come from years of hard work of learning to be an excellent networker:

Ne’eman battles a strange kind of image problem: his critics accuse him of not really being autistic. His mother, Rina, is particularly sensitive about this. “People who see Ari today have no idea where he’s been,” she says. As a young child, Ne’eman was verbally precocious but socially challenged. “I didn’t understand the people around me, and they didn’t understand me,” he says. He was bullied and ostracized—back then he didn’t look at people; he flapped his hands and paced incessantly (he still does both today); he brought newspapers to elementary school as leisure reading. “I think the word ‘freak’ may have come up,” he says. He was, at one point, segregated from his peers in a special-ed school. That led to struggles with depression and anxiety so severe he would pick at his face until it bled. I asked Ne’eman how he manages all the professional mingling he does today. Small talk makes him uncomfortable, but he’s learned to play along. Still, none of it is easy. “You come out of a meeting and you’ve put on a mask, which involves looking people in the eye, using certain mannerisms, certain phrases,” he says. “Even if you learn to do it in a very seamless sort of way, you’re still putting on an act. It’s a very ex-hausting act.”

This is a common attack tactic from people like Jake Crosy at AoA or Harold Doherty. They demean the efforts that autistic people such as Ari have needed and still need to put into their lives to advocate for their own beliefs in favour of the promotion of their own limited and limiting set of autism related beliefs. But as history has shown, its people like Ari – those who are willing to be openly challenged about what they think who will win the respect of people.

Well done Ari, I’m proud to think that you are representing all manner of people on the spectrum, from the very high functioning Jake Crosby to the very low functioning such as my daughter. Thank you.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →