MY INTERVIEW WITH AUTISM SPEAKS IS UP

Post Reply New Topic

Read the interview I conducted with the Vice President of Awareness and Events at Autism Speaks, featuring an original quote by John Elder Robison, author of "Look Me in the Eye." In this groundbreaking interview, Marnane discusses Autism Speaks’ controversial past, the possibility of an autism cure, the future of this powerful organization, and more… Scroll down to see...

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/index.php

I posted my feelings regarding Autism Speak's responses at: Another thread on this site - link

I am not at all pleased.

Me too...on both counts...

(But not YOUR fault T-M)

I see your effort as one that has garnered clarifications by the organization to questions and concerns that have been addressed here on this site, and obviously on the AFF site, since individuals there came up with the questions.

I see that as the goal of your effort. Whether or not the responses are to be believed or not, is up to individual opinion, however it is clear that your effort in gaining the responses asked for has been a successful one.

Congratulations, I see you as successful in your effort.

My response to the interview was presented in the other thread as well.

Why are people saying that they are posting responses to an interview in a thread posted before it happened rather than in this thread? Doesn't that mean people are prejudging? I will deliver a post later to this thread where I actually respond to what is said.

Because the real discussion has been occurring in that thread.

q4 -
A: Autism Speaks is not funding any research to develop a prenatal test for autism. That is not our goal. The genetic research Autism Speaks has funded is aimed at finding biological causes, as described above.

Well that's fairly unequivocal. That means if we find out they are developing one we can call them outright liars and cheats. If they are actually telling the truth then we can call anyone who has decried them liars and cheats. Needs examination though for accurate evidence whether they are or they are not.

Another quote at the end of q5's A:
Interestingly, the reaction to that blog and other articles was mixed, mirroring the very conflicts across our community.

So, not so blind to other's opinions as people might wish-think.

q6's A: Autism Speaks does not and never has sought to eradicate autism

Excellent. Another straight answer. So people here is something that you can pin autism speaks to if you find out that it is lying. If what they say here is true though then I think ASAN has been exposed as lying.

q7's A: We believe that everyone with autism has special gifts – it’s up to families and the community to help them discover those qualities. We do not speculate on who may or may not have had Asperger Syndrome in history.

The second sentence is absolutely justified and much more sensible than the policy of slapping autism on to every person in history so people can feel pride by association and not do anything with their own lives. Again the the first sentence is another ideal that Autism Speaks has just pinned itself to. If it doesn't live up to that then it's screwed. If it does then its opposition are outright delusional.

q8's A: Absolutely. We post all open positions on multiple job sites and encourage anyone who meets the qualifications to apply. Autism Speaks does not discriminate in its hiring practices. People with autism are employed at Autism Speaks and are also appointed to several boards and committees, such as the Scientific Advisory Board and Treatment Advisory Board, both of which review and evaluate our research grant proposals. So people on the autism spectrum are shaping what we fund. We also have many family members at Autism Speaks, both as employees and board/committee members.

Excellent! Seems that we have other things we can pin autism speaks to in order to find out whether it is being truthful or not.

q9's A:
A: We are a young organization and we learn as we grow. Without a doubt we have made mistakes – and to those we may have offended we are truly sorry. We never set out to offend. We are sincerely trying to help all those struggling with ASD. The autism spectrum is just that – a broad spectrum – and we respect that there are many different points of view. What touches someone can offend another. What we ask of this community is to also respect that others don’t think or feel the way they do – that doesn’t mean their opinions and thoughts are wrong. We all need to learn to be respectful and compassionate.


Well here you can say that they are sorry for some things but not sorry for others, which means that autism speaks is currently more sorry for its actions than most people I have spoken to on this forum! And autism speaks didin't even compare me to hitler! Or be a consistent liar!

So in conclusion we have a lot of ideals here that autism speaks professes to live up to. Now it is up for people to find convincing evidence that they are lying, or otherwise it seems we have a bigot problem...

THis isn't a good answer. I said why are people putting their replies to the answers in a thread before the answers were made? That's prejudging. I couldn't care if it was George Washington or Chairman Mao that was being prejudged. It's wrong.

I answered the question I thought you had.

If you are concerned because some of us, having heard lies from Autism Speaks in the past, expected to hear lies from Autism Speaks again, don't be.

Prejudice is judging before you have a basis for having an opinion.

Autism Speaks has a long history of saying things that are half-truths, misleading, or outright lies. Based upon this history, it is not wrong to anticipate more of the same.

So first you said that I shouldn't be worried that you will think of what they said is a lie just because of their history.

But then you said that what they said is a lie just because of their history.

Prejudice is judging a person based on inadequate information.

In order to tell whether the person who made these comments is a liar you must upfront provide me evidence that the answers given are absolute fabrications by giving me primary source evidence that conclusively contradicts what they said in these responses. I will accept primary source evidence that accurately shows them trying to hide something.

I am sorry AlanTuring, but the same principles that apply to ci apply to anyone else when it comes to saying whether a person is wrong or bad or evil. I dont doubt there is much fishiness in Autism Speaks, but I wont bend my principles for anything or anyone.

Again, here I would agree that whether or not someone considers a statement a half truth or misleading, is fashioned by each individuals personal experience and individual perception, so it is often a subjective opinion not easily refuted.

However stating that an organization has a history of outright lies, with no objective evidence presented, could be seen as slanderous by that organization. Whether or not you believe the answers, referenced in this thread, that have been given as clear responses to the questions posed by people at AFF, is your opinion, as long as you don't state them as outright lies, without evidence.

While, Autism Speaks offers no support for me as an Autistic individual, as a parent of a child that was disabled, that might have eventually been impacted in a positive way by the type of research Autism Speaks does, and seeing and providing evidence in other threads here that the research they do has provided positive results, that may help the quality of life of other children, I see it as a personally offensive or at least insinuation of personal attack of character of the people that work for Autism Speaks, in your statement here that Autism speaks has a history of saying things that are outright lies.

As I asked you before similiarly in the other thread, if you have evidence that proves that people in the organization have stated outright lies, provide it and I will stand corrected. Otherwise, I ask now that you no longer attack the personal character of individuals working for the organization that have a mission to help people with Autism by stating they are demonstrated liars or have a long history of saying outright lies, whether or not you agree with their mission, believe the answers to the questions they have given on this thread, or the way the way they go about fulfilling their mission.

Above and beyond that, the Op has indicated that Autism Speaks will be reviewing these threads to see our responses to the effort they have made to bridge the gap between the members here that have asked for answers to these questions. Whether or not you agree with the answers, they have listened to the questions of autistic persons and have taken the time and effort to give them answers; they don't deserve unwarranted character attacks for that effort. It is also against the rules of this website.

"Autism Speaks does not and never has sought to eradicate autism."

A brand new lie is the closest thing to an admission of error in the nonautistic mind. Nice work, John. :)

Give me a damned source and I'll go right with you. Don't give me a damned source and I wont.

As I have said, I will be working on gathering, reviewing, and presenting that evidence. It will take quite some time, though I will post on it periodically.

Much evidence has been posted before. I have no intention of remaining quiet about what I think Autism Speaks until I have presented the evidence I think is there. Think what you like. I think it would be wrong not to call them on what they say and do.

Many have suggested in the past that Suzanna Wright's statement, 2008 "ultimately eradicating autism" meant eradicating autistic people. The context of the question is in relationship to the valuable qualities of Autism; they clarify here that the organization wishes to eliminate the frequent co-occurring medical issues that negatively impact quality of life for many of those on the spectrum not the positive qualities of humans on the spectrum.

When the organization started it was focused on the serious medical impacts associated with Autism, such as those experienced by the grandson of the founders and this is how the target audience that she was speaking to understood the word Autism.

Autism, now, is also understood as reaching into as a broader autism phenotype that exists farther into the population of those that successfully function independently in life, including many higher functioning diagnosed people.

In context of the question, the research they have done has not been focused on ridding the positive Aspects of Autism, instead focusing on the negative co-occuring medical condition issues, so by context of the question, and by fact, they have not sought to eradicate these positive aspects of autism, only the negative medical issues associated with it.

If one didn't understand the context of the question, the answer would be questionable. If there is still confusion there is an open line of communication to get further clarification from the organization, instead of stating their is a brand new lie.

The government is still using language like combatting which obviously means combatting the disabling aspects of Autism, not the Autistic. Who knows, maybe the government, in the future, may follow suit and specify details like combatting the medical issues associated with Autism, but at this point I think most people know what they mean when they say combating Autism.

I don't doubt that there is evidence, but I want a clear set of data that refutes the standing claims that were made in the interview.