Whats with all the Autism Speaks hate.

Post Reply New Topic

The CDC reports that 25 to 30% of children with ASD's who gain the ability to speak words, lose them at 12 to 18 months of age. Obviously those children are not able to provide that point of view here, so the parents often speak for them, in acknowledgement that this part of the spectrum also exists, as it is often out of sight out of mind in online Autism Discussions.

Some clinicians describe this subgroup of individuals with Autism Disorder with the term regressive autism. There is another Autism Spectrum Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder where regression in social communication and motor skills occurs.

If I remember correctly Nostromo's son developed what is described as regressive autism.

The founder of Autism Speaks has a grandson on the spectrum who lost his ability to speak words; it is what motivated the founder, the former President of NBC, to start Autism Speaks, to give other parents with children with similar conditions the opportunity to have a voice in the effort to find the answers as to why their children where losing their ability to connect with the social world around them. Before Autism Speaks was formed there was serious concern that Vaccines might be associated with regressive autism, as a significant number of parents reported their children lost speech after vaccines, but research has since shown no link of causation.

Interestingly, while Autism Speaks publicly supports the benefits of vaccines over and beyond potential side effects, the daughter of the founder went a separate direction than Autism Speaks, still concerned that vaccines might be a causal factor. That is a concern that remains among some even after the research evidenced there was no causal link. It is also a concern that in part is attributed to the loss of herd immunity to infectious disease in some areas of Europe, where there is less support for vaccines, per those concerns, than the US.

Some areas of Europe are in the low to mid 80 percent range for childhood vaccinations, but the US continues to vaccinate at close to 95% for childhood vaccinations.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/signs.html

I think your thinking of childhood disintegrative disorder. My son just has regressive Autism apart from which he is as healthy as and physically capable as any child his age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_autism
"emerging research shows that males with regressive autism have brains that are six percent larger than anyone with early-onset autism" yep, my son has the large head, two parents that work in IT, the usual pattern!

+1

Yeah it seems sometimes people fail to take that into consideration, talking is not the only way of communicating.

Its unlikely they will, and they don't have to they want to.




Again with the 'hoarding' abilities.........its not like people get to choose the level of ability they have. I mean should i hold a grudge against someone who can control their anxiety well enough to function just because I can't. Or should I accept they struggle less with it than I do and that's just the way it is......no 'hoarding' on their part. Its not physically possible for one to take out their ability and aptitude and insert it into someone else s brain. So would you quit with the higher functioning autistics are 'hoarding' abilities, that is completely irrational. Also the idea is to 'help' the autistics that have less abilities rather then try to change them into something they maybe cannot change into and to make sure they have some quality of life as well as needs met. But I am a socialist for the most part so I belive it is the societies responsibility to provide for its people even the severely disabled ones.



Well once again talking is not the only way to communicate......also in the event the autistic cannot express in any way whatsoever what they find unpleasant or pleasant via negative physical reaction to negative things or positive reaction to good things. My concern is having someone more interested in ridding the world of autism speaking for that individual than someone who cares first about the well-being of that autistic individual and is there to help them.........not use them as a poster child for how terribly autism afflicts families.

I read on wikipedia that autism speaks helps fund Autism talk tv. Anyone know if that's true?

The problem with a "cure" is that as children have virtually no rights, children who do not want to be cured will have the "cure" forced on them by their parents. It's what my parents did to me for me being Obsessive-Compulsive. It did not end well.

Excepting that the word cure is not right, I disagree. There must be causes of Autisms, therefore those causes should be able to be uncovered and potentially a treatment be developed.

It is the most convenient and portable.

What are you splitting hairs for? There cannot be a cure if it isn't made. It has to be made for it to start being available. Of course someone has to make the choice to do it.



I don't care that they didn't get to choose it. It's still unfair, and they didn't work to gain their core aptitudes. Nothing is just the way it is. Things change. I want the aptitude to be copied into someone else's nervous system. What can they be helped to do? Not all can be solved by ignoring the underlying problem. They're not going to get basic functions guaranteed to them with current therapies. Quality of life includes abilities. Not just bare needs of living. Why don't they deserve extra? The same things others have. It's not a change into something they can't change into. If the abilities others have were handed over to them, they could produce for themselves as they want to.


I cannot reason with someone who doesn't think that communication is essential for a person. You clearly think it's alright for someone to have no reliable means to communicate. There can be many important things one can't alert others to if they lack verbal language skills, which many do. Current and future treatments for this as formulated by professionals, including biomedical ones, should be considered part of mental health, which is a part of health care. If you cast aspersions on such a real part of health care, one should question what kind of a socialist you are. Families aren't the priority, but that doesn't make your side right. The actual autistic individual, if they lack ability to begin with, would benefit from what is called cure. What is the big deal? Just let research into cure proceed and focus on other efforts for the short-term.

It's true.
Why would a child want to remain mentally impaired? Why would a child like having to work harder than other children to learn in school and to do basic tasks? Why would they prefer being impaired in social interaction?

I never suggested communication isn't essential, just that there are other ways of communicating besides verbal words that should be taken into consideration, especially if one cannot communicate by talking. Also what side I am not on any particular side here just expressing how I feel about a cure or treatments what i meant by being socialist is I think it is societies responsibility to take care of its citizens including the disabled ones.....if that is the bad kind of socialist than so be it I guess.

Are you suggesting attempts at other forms of communication someone with low functioning autism who cannot talk might use should just be ignored and disregarded. For instance if a treatment causes obvious distress should it be continued just because that person cannot say 'no I don't agree with this treatment' or should those doing it take into consideration if the autistic was to express distress maybe a different approach should be used.

I imagine it depends on the individual, maybe they feel that is better to the alternative, they might decide the treatment is too dangerous to be worth it.

You don't have the credentials to repudiate the professionals who choose to research it.



Of course the demands are heavy. That doesn't make them bad. I'd say it's radical, but things are bad enough to warrant a drastic change. Sometimes disparities in abilities are way too much and are therefore unfair, depriving some of opportunities. We all know this is the way things are, due to our instincts, even if we hesitate to talk openly of it when confronted with the issue. I'm not the only one who experiences lower quality of life due to lack of ability. It's not any particular society. Individuals naturally want to contribute and be an integral part of things, even if they have trouble doing so. They also want to advance and get status. I can't help being an egotistical envious person. What do you define as quality of life?


There isn't much of an alternative to verbal communication through speech or typing/writing. Verbal communication exists for a reason. Caring for citizens includes health care. If stronger treatments become available, they are part of health care. Backward notions that would undermine the idea of health care are antithetical to caring for citizens. You can't go around saying you accept that it's society's responsibility to care for citizens, if you think as an unqualified professional, you can micromanage what is and isn't valid health care for other individuals. I don't need or want you denying me treatment.

It seems like you want there to be a lot of risk, so there will be fear. You know the solution would be wanted strongly, so the only thing to make them abandon it, is to make them think their life depends on remaining in a terrible condition.

Why would a child want someone telling them how to act, what to think, who to be?

To blend in with society? I don't want to be a member of any society that can't accept me for who I am.

Those questions have no relevance as such propositions have nothing to do with cure. Many who have the problems to be cured are being told what to think when they're told to put up with the things they have to deal with, that they don't deserve the opportunities others have. Of course, they disguise such orders with nice sounding phrases like the ones you anti-cure aggressors like to say. With a mental impairment, one very often cannot be what they really want to be, what they would choose to be, simply cause they lack some ability. It is a lot less easy to control and manipulate someone if they have ability of their own to do things with.
"Blending in society" is a loaded phrase. The goal is for one to be able to interact with others, which includes clear understandings in communications. With that ability, they can choose who they want to interact with according to their own ideas. There are different ways one exists in society. One should get to choose to what extent and with whom they interact, without having their options restricted and choices distorted by impairments in aptitude. They can make these personal choices for themselves. If individuals don't like each other, they shouldn't have to interact any further than is necessary.