Trying to find a cure is idiotic

Post Reply New Topic

Be careful about calling people a troll..explain why i am trolling then.

AS is a disability, and condition,syndrome..but not a disorder.

We are disabled and it's because we are not able to function like NT's can without it being amajoy struggle on our parts. It weakens us through high stress levels, and normal chitchat is not possible, so we are then socially disabled.

It is a hidden disability.....what does everyone here say to that?

davidgolfpro, that's enough now.
It was only a few posts ago you were making a similar accusation against the OP.

AS is a disability, and condition,syndrome..but not a disorder.

I have Aspergers Disorder.

I have a DISORDER. I do not have a "difference" or a "personality type." I have a DISORDER.

I currently take Zoloft to help alleviate symptoms of said disorder. If and when other options to alleviate my symptoms become available, I will not hesitate to utilize them. Can that be considered the same thing as a "cure" if enough of my issues can be resolved through medical intervention? Maybe. Do I care? No. The-Powers-That-Be are more than welcome to keep striving for a cure if they have the means to do so, and I may even make use of such a thing if it is ever created. And before some sanctimonious mental midget starts screaming that society should just try harder to accommodate me, there's absolutely no reason why we can't strive for improved medical interventions AND social acceptance.

Aspergers Disorder is a disorder. It is not just "being a little different," or "feeling awkward around other people." Unfortunately, we appear to have reached a point where introverted nerds are no longer content with merely being introverted nerds, and they want to be "autistic;" therefore, we get this, "It's just a difference!" crap. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not impaired, you do not have an ASD. That is the dividing line between what is considered "normal functioning" and "abnormal functioning."

Personally, I have no idea why "autism" is considered so cool that even people with no impairments want to march around announcing that they are "autistic," but I never have understood other people. Perhaps it's the overwhelming desire to belong to some kind of "herd" that NTs are even willing to identify with a mental disorder just to "fit in" somewhere.

In any case, I'm getting tired of being told how I should feel about my disorder. I need support to function in my daily life. I am not a savant or a genius. I have a disorder and I need help; I'm not going to pretend I don't need help, or that I wouldn't welcome a "cure" because of a bunch of neurodiversity rhetoric. I want CHOICE.

I think "cure" needs to be defined.

I tend to doubt that a person's brain can be re-wired, especially not when they reach adulthood, but, as I've already stated, alleviating symptoms via medical means might be within reach. Could that be considered a "cure" or a sort? Perhaps.

And I agree we should always try to make things easier for people with impairments and/or disabilities, but finding medical treatments and improving socio-economic opportunities are not mutually exclusive.

XFilesGeek, I found your commentary, excellent. I think you hit the nail on the head. In the coming years, severity(as defined by DSM-V) used in the context of a Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis will unmistakeably denote disability rather than an arbitrary difference. Previous definitions of Autism as impairments left room for ambiguity. Where reasonable ambiguity exists, a diagnosis of Social Communication Disorder or Social Reciprocity Disorder will be employed.

TheSunAlsoRises

Such medication is a treatment, not a cure. A cure would get rid of the condition and make no further treatment nesccairy. The difference is very important when discussing stuff like cancer and AIDS.

Researchers announced Tuesday the beginning of a FDA-approved clinical trial that uses umbilical cord blood stem cells to ‘cure’ autism.

Dr. Michael Chez, director of pediatric neurology at Sutter Neuroscience Institute in Sacramento, Calif., said he and his colleagues have been processing the trial for more than a year now, and they have high hopes it will succeed.

“What we are looking at, is cases that don’t have an obvious genetic link,” Chez told FoxNews.com. “Patients that we presume something went wrong with their brains, which caused a change to autistic features.”

In other words, the trial’s patients will essentially have no reason to have autism – or at least no genetic markers for the disease. This means they must have presumably developed it through another factor, such as the environment or exposure to an infection.