Posted This On Autism Speaks Facebook Page

Post Reply New Topic

I can deal with an opinion that you might present that their choices have resulted in negative impacts, but stating that they are doing harm to Autistics is a direct cause and effect statement. Glad to see that you state here that they are simply motivated by money, influence, and status; no one could prove that they aren't motivated by that; but by the same token no one has proven their intention is to harm Autistics. I'm glad you admit that now, but your statements before certainly sounded like an assertion that they were directly harming Autistics and were aware of it. That is where it sounds slanderous, if one says that and cannot provide facts to support it.

We live in a Capitalistic society where making money, having influence and status is seen as an admirable goal by most, so in general there is no reason to suspect that the leaders in that organization would not expect to be paid the going rate for a similar sized organization.

But, the funding they receive is in part based on how well they fulfill the mission that is promised to those that fund them. If the research they fund is seen as a potential negative impact to Autistics by those that fund them, they would likely receive less funding. They don't get money from researchers; they grant researchers funding, so there is no particular benefit to be gained from researchers for supporting a specific research guideline.

Wouldn't make much sense for them to choose research that might have a negative impact on autistics, if their main interest was to keep their salary, influence, and status as is. As soon as the general public as a whole sees them in anyway making an impact on Autistic people that is negative they will not only lose funding, but also influence and status.

That is a built in check and balance on any charitable organization that has led to the down fall of quite a few.

They are funded by parents, the general public and random rich people to do things TO autistic people that their NT funders think is appropriate and in the best interests of autistic people. They are not funded BY autistic people, and that is where the capitalist model falls down. Companies are funded by their own customers, so as long as they can't lie to their customers, customers can refuse to buy from them. In this case, the "product"-therapies, "awareness" and abortion is done TO/ABOUT the autistic people, against their will FOR neurotypicals who want to see a certain outcome, which they may or may not think is in the best interests of the autistic person, but which nevertheless compromises their autonomy.

LOOK! A pretty painting!

Who said Hitler was all bad?

I personally don't give a flying f*ck about their intentions when what they DO stigmatizes Autistic children and rips off their supporters.

We've reached a pretty pass when the ethical argument is "Sure, they're corrupt greedy bAstards, but so is e'erbody else, so it's all right, yo."

Sure, if they didn't intentionally mislead the ignorant masses about the scientific validity of their "research", and where people's money goes.

Sure it would, so long as they don't DIE. That stage will be implemented when the pre-natal genetic screenings come in.

The general public knows jack sh*t about Autism except for what the media tells them, and as the most powerful and well-financed Autism "advocacy" group, Autism Speaks controls the majority of that information flow.

Yeah. When people like those in this thread kick up enough fuss about it.

If one states they are knowingly choosing to hurt someone when there are no facts that back this up, I don't think it is a good idea, and the poster clarified by stating she wasn't suggesting that there motivations were one of harming someone; I think in general that is a wise practice.

They are funded by parents, the general public and random rich people to do things TO autistic people that their NT funders think is appropriate and in the best interests of autistic people. They are not funded BY autistic people, and that is where the capitalist model falls down. Companies are funded by their own customers, so as long as they can't lie to their customers, customers can refuse to buy from them. In this case, the "product"-therapies, "awareness" and abortion is done TO/ABOUT the autistic people, against their will FOR neurotypicals who want to see a certain outcome, which they may or may not think is in the best interests of the autistic person, but which nevertheless compromises their autonomy.

It's another argument, but Autism Speaks is not going to make a significant difference on whether or not a prenatal test is developed and certainly can't control a woman's right to abortion. If and when a prenatal test is developed the funding Autism Supports provides that leads to that prenatal test will be a fraction of the other support that genetic testing is already receiving. I'm not sure how we will be able to square the blame of this entirely on Autism Speaks.

Straight question...is that supposed to be some kind of veiled threat? Because it certainly looks like one to me.

You're missing the point. The point is that Autism Speaks is not the only organization that indulges in hyperbole. It is intellectually dishonest to take Autism Speaks to task for using crass, emotionally laden language in their materials while turning a blind eye to similar tactics by the neurodiversity ideologues.

And you ARE all about being intellectually honest, right?

Strange thing about that genetic research funding... Autism Speaks main funding partners in this research are the CDC, NIH and NICHD. In case you are unsure what the goal of the NICHD is:

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation.



I think the 'before birth' and 'reproductive biology and population issues' is what scares people. No ,it is not ALL Autism Speaks 'fault'. They are in this with some big players that DO have a much bigger agendas. If you read through the objectives and goals of these organizations in regards to autism research, it will chill you to the bone, especially the NICHD. Is Autism Speaks OUTWARDLY to 'blame' for anything nefarious - no. But, then again, if they did have a darker agenda, would you honestly expect them to tell you?

Absolutely not, I delt with legal issues over slander in my area of employment with the government so am fully aware of them. It concerns me when I hear people make comments about organizatios that could potentially be seen as slanderous if not backed up by facts, because I am aware that they don't play games with their legal rights and aren't afraid to use them as necessary.

There is a public outcry to cure Autism and the current administration is very much involved in that. The government is directly involved with the effort and they are funding part of it. These are government agencies and they happen to have those other elements that they always have had; I can see where one might read into that, but all these government agencies work together to determine causes and find cures for health problems in children.

Does an organization have a dark agenda that is composed of people that have autistic relatives; someone would have to provide evidence for me to me to believe that. Money, greed, power, influence could reasonably be a part of any human's actions, but an intentional desire to hurt children seems a little far fetched to me.

And, I can see where their efforts are directed mostly at children with autism that have serious problems and concerns of their relatives and friends of relatives. The organization was inspired by children with Autism, not adults with Aspergers or high functioning autism.

ASAN was inspired by people of all ages living with Autism; the concerns are similar but the main focuses are evidently much different.

Your questions makes sense if and only if Autism Speaks helped low-functioning individuals, as opposed to demonizing them and throwing away millions on conspiracy theory research and paying their board 6 figure salaries. Did you bother to read my post before you commented?
And we all know how productive melodramatic despair is when working with lower-functioning children, as well as pumping them full of chemicals and labeling them as "diseased". (x1)

Autism isn't a disease. The word has a definition. Autism ain't it. Moreover, the point was that this type of rhetoric hurts ALL Autistics- did you not read my post at all? (x2)


Mmmkay.
http://www.autismspeaks.org/docs/Autism ... 0_2009.pdf
2009 990 Form^
You'll observe the President, Mark Roithmayr, took home $372,292.
The Executive Vice Presient, Peter Bill, made a tidy sum of $256,240
The Chief Science Officer, Geri Dawson, made off with $439,848
You'll notice their total revenue for that year is listed at around $45.5 million
The grants actually paid out to programs for Autistics? $10.7 million
Salaries? $16.6 million
"Other" expenses? $16.4 million
So, in terms of this versus that:
$10.7 million on programs for Autistics / Revenue for 2009: $45.5 million = 24%
To give you some context on what that means for a "non-profit", that's...quite simply abominable.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 59,00.html
^Peter Bell, Autism Speaks Executive Vice President, in light of "I Am Autism" backlash, muses that the company might in the future add Autistic individuals to "advisory" committees
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... mr-vaccine
Senior Executive Alison Singer resigns rather than be politcally-pressured into voting to allocate funds toward researching vaccine link^
"There isn't an unlimited pot of money, and every dollar spent looking where we know the answer isn't is one less dollar we have to spend where we might find new answers. The fact is that vaccines save lives; they don't cause autism."
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human ... peaks.html
Eric London Resigns from Autism Speaks Scientific Advisory Board^
'Says claims that "there might be rare cases of 'biologically-plausible' vaccine involvement ... are misleading and disingenuous". He goes on to say that that Autism Speaks was "adversely impacting" autism research.
http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2008/01 ... child.html
^Autism Speaks sues a 14 year old Autistic girl- apparently their panties got in a twist over her parody website which suggested "intervention" and "cure" for annoying and intolerant NT behavior was in order

The two are not related. "An opinion that what they do is evil and corrupt is quite understandable for someone" who is at all well-researched about what they DO. Knowledge of the definition of "disease" and that Autism is not one changes nothing. (x3)
In other words, people who are not at all well-versed in actual medical terminology. (x4)
If that were true, Autism Speaks would be researching cures as opposed to conspiracy theories.
Because we all know public campaigns to label Autistic children as "diseased" promotes better treatment of them. Uh-huh.
In other words, someone who is NOT ignorant of medical terminology (x5)
The only healthy "view" is that Autistics should be treated as the individuals they are, never labelled "diseased" or implied to be possessed by some evil demon, and should have the benefit of LEGITIMATE scientific research being done on their behalf, funded by the tax dollars of compassionate individuals who place their trust in an organization to do what it says it does

It isn't. (x6)
Some of us feel an ethical obligation to speak out against non-facts being perpetrated as facts to the shame of families and the detriment of already-vulnerable individuals. (x7)

That is to say, people or parents who know medical terminology. (x8 )



Do you have any other real defense in light of their tax records and "troubled" scientific research,
other than to chant incessantly that Autism Speaks is good and ethical because they represent the non-factual, unscientific and non-medical tiny minority of individuals who mislabel it as a disease?

Why not just be honest and call it what it is- a PR group for people with no scientific or medical background.
while simultaneously proclaiming to speak for Autism, period?

However, they work with many scientists and medical professionals on advisory boards that help to make decisions, just like similar organizations. And as evidenced, if they don't agree with the actions that autism speaks pursues some are willing to resign their positions over it.

"reproductive biology and population issues' used together, in the same sentence, does bear closer scrutiny as an established goal of a large publicly funded institution. All of those government agencies and the WHO have all openly discussed population control and it is perhaps a bit too optimistic to believe that they are simply talking about contraception. Autism is an 'expensive world health crisis'. This is the same wording used when discussing the prenatal testing for Down's. Since the advent of that test Down's births have decreased by 2/3 - cost of care has been effectively slashed. It was a successful strategy that accomplished its goal. Is there any wonder why people are nervous that they have turned those same sights and same words on autism?

I haven't suggested that any agency has an agenda to intentionally hurt children. I made no such claim. I am suggesting that by focusing on 'cure', of the prenatal testing variety, that treatment and therapy for those already here is suffering. Money is being funneled to stopping 'the epidemic' not helping those already here. Considering that the rates of diagnosis keep changing - and increasing - I think they are barking up the wrong tree. By Autism Speaks account, the rate of autism in boys is 1 in 70. There are 7 billion people in the world. Do the math. Is it an 'epidemic' or is it a subculture of the 'normal' population? We may never know if the only agenda being widely and aggressively pursued is elimination. None of these organizations is making any effort to understand the autistic - they are only concerned with understanding autism. Big difference there.

Again, I ask, hypothetically - If they did have a darker agenda, do you really think they would tell you? Follow the money, find the agenda. What they SAY is exactly what they want you to hear - nothing more.

A woman's individual decision to have an abortion, in general. is not seen as a dark agenda