Posted This On Autism Speaks Facebook Page

Post Reply New Topic

Name calling, now? I'm a bully because I want precision? Perhaps the hives have nothing to do with what you perceive as bullying.

You have been invited by several other posts in this thread to share actual evidence of your positions. Perhaps I'm being a little snarky, but you started it when you directly said we weren't worth the effort. I would love to hear more of what reliable information forms your opinions. But the opinions you offer are well known and in and of themselves are nothing new. I keep "poking the bear" hoping that it might invoke something more than a tit for tat trading of thinly veiled insults. If you have good information, let's hear it. I'm all ears. But we ARE Aspie's here and we tend to pick things apart ad nauseum.

In 1984 Bayer Corporation knowingly sold AIDS tainted Factor 8 clotting drugs, for haemophiliacs, overseas. They had full knowledge the product was tainted- the same product was pulled in the US and massive settlements to families were made because of it. They sold it becasue they needed to turn a profit on unsold merchandise. Nothing more. Thousands of people contracted AIDS and died because of the need for corporate profit. The FDA knew. They made no move to stop them. No US executive was even brought up on charges - they weren't even criminally investigated. It happened in 1984 - it didn't come to light in full gory detail until 2003.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJNc-fo6omY[/youtube]

I believe that it would be naive to assume that this is an isolated incident of our government shielding a private corporation in defense of its own agenda. Intentional and knowing murder of haemophiliacs - with not a single conviction. Not even a criminal investigation. Not possible in America, right?

Autism Speaks is working closely with several government agencies to combat autism, agencies with a stated purpose of eliminating autism. Autism is expensive. How many public officials have publicly questioned the cost of autism? Our government also funded the genetic studies into Down's with the stated purpose of eliminating the condition. After the prenatal genetic test was approved all funding of 'a cure' for Down's ceased. I'd say their goal had been achieved. I suppose we will all find out the hard way if they have the same intentions for autism or not.

If you choose to believe in a totally benevolent government and the philanthropic interests of a large corporation, that is your right. But simply denying that those that oppose your opinion have no precedence guiding their doubts is entirely misguided.

You think you are being very clever and twisting other people's words in order to feel you can dominate them, when, in fact you are just talking a load of codswallop to try and bully them.

I also think I have wasted enough time and words on you for one lifetime.

I don't believe in a totally benevolent government. But I have some difficulty believing that there is such a deeply layered and concerted effort to eradicate autism. That would imply both a competent government (how could they implement such a plan without competency?) and there being no financial interest in keeping autism around. Currently, the expense of autism generates huge profits. If the premise is that profit generation motivates the policies of a government that primarily serves corporate interests, then eliminating autism removes a cash cow. It isn't a consistent argument.

I wish I could find one shred of conclusive evidence, or even a rationale that suggests you are being paranoid, but I cannot.

Global recession and depleted resources tend to provide a sense of general justification disregard for the weakest and speed the process up.

I don't know if it really generates such huge profits. At current, I think most of the actual $$costs associated with autism are being paid by public school systems- themselves government entities (although local not federal). The only corporate entities I can see coming out ahead on this are pharmaceutical companies selling SSRIs and Risperasol and maybe some others. Even that doesn't seem huge enough for the federal government to really care.

The people really raking in the cash from this are- I think- rather small companies selling quack cures or therapies and the makers of GF/CF products. It's big money to them, but I don't think it's really big enough to be elevated to government-protected corporate interest.

Yes, thousands of people have jobs working with autism. Unfortunately, it is not a disease process, at least then pharmaceutical companies could get in on it but, so far, they can't. It's not a disease process that can be 'cured', alleviated or vaccinated against. Vaccinating a nation - or the global population - is where the money is. There is no BIG money in autism, only small, local and personal profit. And who is footing the lion's share of that bill? The federal government. Autism is a drain on SSA and the welfare system. There are politicians who have spoken out against public funding for autism. Autism isn't a cash cow, they see it more like a leech.

Yes, there are stunning examples of government incompetency but it would be foolish to believe that EVERYONE in government is so stupid. We would have crashed and burned as a nation long ago if that were the case.

At times I really wish I was just paranoid. I'm not really prone to that. I tend to be too objective. It is a gift and a curse to always see ALL sides of an issue, so much so that it can paralyze your ability to make a clear decision. Too many times, there isn't one. I tend to remain neutral - or 'on the fence' - without ever choosing a side and it drives people crazy.

As much as I hate to quote Dr. Phil, of all people - "Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior." Our government has a track record on this type of issue. Also "Follow the money." We live in a dedicatedly capitalistic society. It is a safe assumption that money is the root of most agendas, whatever they may be. Follow the money - who makes it, who spends it, who needs it and for what purpose? I don't lend much creedance to press releases and public statements and definitely not to advertising. These things only say what they want to be heard. Look at the money trail, follow it and draw your own conclusions. It's not a big emotional, irrational reaction to mistakenly interpretted corporate intentions. Follow the money, find the agenda and make up your own mind.

Right, okay, but is that inflammatory rhetoric used on a national scale to influence public opinion or is it primarily a bunch of autistic people on internet fora grousing about neurotypicals?



There's more background to that protest that involved Autism Speaks putting a large number of signs all over a university campus that made numerous statements about autism and autistic people. Plus, the ASAN chapter in question was protesting Autism Speak's policies - the same policies that are discussed in this thread. Protest is a time-honored form of activism.

I won't argue the utility of protest. Sometimes that is the best way to get a message out. But grass roots protest is not valid simply because it is grass roots. There is nothing magical about being "the little guy" that makes truth out of falsehood. I'm not saying that ASAN's protest was based in falsehood, only that there is nothing about the tactic itself that confers righteousness. Complaining about the tactics of Autism Speaks then using similar tactics (appeals to emotion, etc) is just hypocrisy.

I am interested in as much verifiable information I can get regarding this issue. I don't find what I know about Autism Speaks very comforting, but what comes out of ASAN isn't exactly perfect either. My experience tells me that once you strip away all the emotional verbiage and get to the facts that what truth does exist tends to reside in the centers of the argument. Perhaps this is not that case in this situation, but I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

I acknowledged that the government has been involved in dark agenda's before which verifies precedence, but I suggest that if a private organization were involved now that the information age would make it more likely the secret would get out. That's just an
opinion.

There is no secret that organizations, individuals, researchers, and government agencies are looking for the genetic causes and a prenatal test could possibly result from that effort. And there is no secret that a woman has a right to make a decision to have an abortion based on that information. So, even if there was some kind of eugenics conspiracy, the most the conspiracy could hope for was that most woman exercised their right to have an abortion when they got the results of a prenatal test. Other than that though, a justification for a prenatal test could be one of earliest identification and intervention for a better outcome for the child.

My understanding is about 25% of births end in abortion, so one could easily state that the legalization of abortion was a government conspiracy to reduce the number of people living in poverty; in fact, some hold the opinion that there has been a concerted effort to do this in the black community.

The bottom line, again though, is the government doesn't make women have abortions, they make that decision for themselves.

The government is composed of hundreds of agencies and hundreds of thousands of people so the idea that everything that is done is going to be benevolent is impossible. With that level of complexity a number of non-beneficial consequences can be expected whether it is intentional, a mistake, or apathy.

I have also stated time and time again throughout this topic of the mistakes I believe that Autism Speaks has made, and how I see that their awareness campaign has produced discomfort among Autistic people, so I have acknowledged there that the actions of the organization have not been seen as benevelent by all Autistics, including me.

I agreed that I don't like the idea that autism is a disease, because I think that autism is an integral part of who we are and not a separate entity.

I acknowledged that I didn't agree with the action to demand $90,000 from the 14 year old, but their side of the story was they didn't realize she was a minor and they were protecting copyright infringement. The other side of the story points to the parody as being legal, but a court case never ensued to prove copyright infringement because the girl was willing to give up the site to settle the issue.

I don't see further vaccine research as a leading priority, however I do understand that mercury is damaging to the neurological system, and while I might not agree that a vaccine in itself as a substantial amount of thirmesol to aggravate a neurological condition, others don't hold that opinion and seek further research to verify that the first research was invalid.

And the conspiracy theories that circulate associated with the government hushing the vaccine evidence, I don't agree with, and don't see as a likelyhood for the same reasons that I don't think there is a conspiracy to elminate autistics by the government in conjunction with a private organization. It is too hard to keep these things secret in the information age when private individuals are involved. However, within the confines of top security clearance there are a many things we don't know and don't have access to. And some of us might consider them dark agendas.

On the other hand I have identified specific ways the treatments "Autism Speaks" provide awareness of have helped autistics such as the ABA treatment used to motivate the young girl to communicate with a laptop, and specific ways the research they help fund are helping Autistics, such as the recent screening test for autistic children at age one.

Regarding high salaries, while I wish we lived in a world that wasn't quite so competitive and money focused, that's where we live and the salaries that the people receive in an organization as large as Autism speaks are not unusual and considered within reasonable limits for a charitable organization by the BBB.

In addition I noted that Autism Speaks has guidelines for research initiatives now that they are providing grants for to study ways to enhance the lives of adults living with Autism and to provide ways for low income people to receive a diagnosis of Autism.

I also, pointed to the fact that all Autism Speaks accomplishments to help people with Autism is outlined in their annual reports provided in chronological order on their website. I have also provided the research guidelines for the current year that are published on their website that show the actual research that they are supporting this year. And, I noted that further details of that research are also available on their internet site.

My only defense of Autism Speaks has been that there is not enough evidence to categorically label the organization as one that harms Autistics, an evil organization, a corrupt organization, or an organization that hates people with autism.

I also stated that I have no problem with those that hold an opinion that some of their actions are harmful to autistics, evil, corrupt, or hateful. But I maintain that the problems with their organization do not merit an overall categorical label as evil, corrupt, one that hates people with autism, or an organization that harms Autistic people.

Autism speaks is a huge organization involved in many efforts to enhance the lives of children and the families of children with Autism that don't please everyone, and they have been associated with a number of actions that have been seen as mistakes and have been reported to cause discomfort among people.

So, I have provided quite a few views on what I don't agree with about the organization, the things they are doing that I see as positive, and provided a defense against organizational labels that I did not see as warranted.

However I did not state or indicate that all their actions have reasonably been seen as totally benevolent.

The complaints I've read were not that Autism Speaks uses appeals to emotion. The complaints I've read were the particular appeals: Charactizing autism as a monster that destroys families, for example. Showing a mother saying right in front of her autistic daughter that she wanted to drive off a bridge and kill both her daughter and herself. I don't understand why you're putting these things in the same category.

aghogday,

You talk about taking the information that a child may be autistic onboard and deciding whether or not to abort is a neutral thing that is strictly the mother's decision - and if this were the case, that wouldn't be an issue. But what's happened with Down Syndrome is that doctors pressure the parents to abort and sell an extremely grim (as in inaccurate) picture of what life is likely to be like for a Down Syndrome child. The picture sold is so grim that a significantly high number of parents choose to abort rather than carry the children to term.

I can't find the quote now, but an official in the UK was saying outright that all potentially autistic fetuses should be aborted - which is to say, no choice at all.

What is the need for an identified genetic cause? Let's say they find that gene X,Y and Z are the cause of autism - what do they do with that information? The gene therapy that was touted as the 'cure of the future' while they were mapping the human genome has long since been found to be wildly theoretical with extremely limited practical application. What is the purpose of identifying a genetic cause? Prenatal identification also has limited applications.

I happen to be a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose. I bear no ill will against those who have determined that they do not have the means, the capacity or the courage to bear a child with a disability. My issue is with the widely accepted and widely advertised belief that all autism is a disability. I do not contend that people on the spectrum have extreme challenges - some do. Many of the most 'disabling' issues are with a society that is incapable of accepting the differences in others. That is a significant difference that is being discounted, demonized and derided all too often.

How many people on the spectrum have had people tell them that they can't be autistic because they can speak? It seems advertising is scarily effective, does it?

I have no personal problem with a right to choose but I would like those making that decision to be able to make an informed, educated and enlightened choice.



Yes - now. After much public debate, protests and internet forum discussions like this one. And highly public news articles about suing a 14 year old autistic girl for slander. (.. . right of parody protects this girl, btw. They have no case.) NOW they are researching all those things that could actually help people in the here and now. That, my friend, is the effect of activism. Squeaky wheels get the grease.



Autism Speaks has an unprecedented ability to do immense good for the autistic community. They have presented themselves as an organization that is deeply aware of the impact of autism on families but they have demonstrated a serious lack of understanding or even concern for how autism affects those with the condition. Perhaps this is a reflection of the deep lack of understanding the NT community, in general, has about autistic thinking - who knows? But this organization claims to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves. They placed themselves into this adversarial position. Did they expect that the majority of those with autism, who CAN speak, would sit down and shut up and agree with everything being said on their behalf without an opinion of their own? Autism Speaks doesn't need to 'go away', they need to be recruited and brought on board with the program. Real change happens slowly and it doesn't happen at all if no one stands up to make it happen.

This ^^^^


Autism Speaks is a piece of the puzzle (deliberate reference to their logo). But they are NOT the entire puzzle. If the dialog between autistic organizations continues with this level of hostility, it will hurt autistics.

Just using statements from the two previous posts to clarify that I do understand that information from a prenatal test will result in the abortion of Autistics. Regardless of what information a woman uses for the decision it is ultimately her decision and is not forced upon her. Autism is already seen as an undesirable condition in the US, so it wouldn't take much further convincing for women to make the decision, although much is taken into account in a decision for any abortion.

While I can't speak for what happens in the UK, our federal government here in the US doesn't tell woman they should have abortions for children with Down Syndrome nor are they allowed to use federal dollars to fund abortion. Doctors give women information on the syndrome and they decide based on those factors and many other potential factors in a personal decision on abortion.

Doctor's have a responsibility to provide information on the condition that a prenatal test evidences and provide options available. The information from the Doctor obviously can influence a decision, but neither the Doctor or the Government forces a woman to have an abortion, she makes that decision based on a personal analysis on the information she receives from all sources and many other personal factors.

And there is no doubt in my mind that a doctor my provide a negative analysis of what to expect in any potential condition from a prenatal test.

But, in the previous post I was only suggesting that there was not a secret government sponsored eugenics conspiracy (in the US) aimed at eliminating Autism. Not, that a woman wouldn't be influenced by information derived from a prenatal test for Autism or any other source of information, if a Prenatal test for Autism ever becomes available.

If a true eugenics program were put in place by the Government in the US, funding might be made available to encourage a woman to abort autistics, or the government might encourage abortion of autistics through a federally funded advertising program, or worse case scenario the government would make abortion of autistics mandatory.

In my opinion none of that is likely to happen here in the US, because political influence is strongly against the usage of any federal dollars to fund abortion. Anything is possible, I just see it as highly unlikely.