a plan to destroy autism speaks

Post Reply New Topic

It wouldn't be possible, unless someone with an autism diagnosis was interested in being on the board of directors. John Elder Robison, who is a member of the Scientific Advisory board, has added much for input into the organization, but has received mostly criticism from the autistic community, including being censored on at least one website.

It is rarely acknowledged that he exists as an active member in the organization, when the organization is criticized, as it is on the ASAN organization's website, and he is usually minimized as a factor when mentioned, as a token individual with autism.

Beyond this, there is no evidence that there isn't anyone with an autism diagnosis on the board of directors. It's not a requirement that anyone broadcast that information. The organization has already stated in the interview quoted in this thread that they employee individuals with autism in their organization. It is illegal to identify these individuals by name, because of medical privacy laws, as it would be illegal to identify members on the board of directors, if any of them had a diagnosis of mild autism. .

It is an established fact that several board members have children with an autism diagnosis. This is the case among most organizations associated with autism. There are some individuals with autism in the higher positions of very small organizations, but not indicated as such in larger organizations like autism speaks.

There are also no individuals with autism identified as such on the American Society of Autism's board of directors that ASAN endorses as an organization, in the same fact sheet that they endorse ASA, that receives the same standards of review on the charity Navigator organization, donates less money to direct family services, and has a sister organization the Autism Research Institute that has recently absorbed the Defeat autism now organization that recommends chelation as a treatment for individuals with heavy metal poison with autism.

Autism Speaks was criticized for having a link to the Defeat Autism Now certified doctors on their website among thousands of other resources, clearly disclaimed as a recommendation by Autism Speaks for potential services.


Note the credentials of the board members, linked below, which are much like what one sees in any large charitable organization. The credentials are a requirement to be part of the board on any large charitable organization. If there are any individuals with a diagnosis of autism with those type of credentials they certainly could be a candidate for a position on the board. But it's highly unlikely, and would not be fair if the credentials were waived for anyone regardless of disability or minority status, whether it is a specific disability, race, gender, religion, or national origin.

http://www.autism-society.org/about-us/board-advisors/board-of-directors.html


Part of the story is usually told, but rarely is the full story told.

Here is the fact sheet from the ASAN organization.

http://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Autism_Speaks_Flyer.pdf

The criticisms are invalid, per their endorsement of the ASAN organization on the same fact sheet, which is reported with a similar mission that autism speaks does per stated mission goals, same overall rating and element rating per stars awarded by the charity navigator organization, no identified diagnosed individuals with autism on their board of directors, the fact that autism speaks provides more money for family services than any organization endorsed on that "fact" sheet, and as you can see referring to John Elder Robison as a token, not even naming him as a hardworking individual with autism contributing valuable input to the organization's scientific advisory board.

Autism Speaks marketing words are taken out of context in the paragraph that suggests that autism speaks portrays autistic adults and children as burdens that must be eliminated from society as soon as possible. Autism speaks has never suggested that any living human being be eliminated from the population.

And ASAN suggests that autism speaks funds are dedicated to the prospect of prenatal testing that autism speaks has already made clear that they are not funding, and there is no evidence that they are funding it in the publicly available research grants that they have awarded.

Perhaps more disturbing is that Autism Speaks will an email if one has constructive criticisms, but the ASAN organization at will can refuse to answer criticism to these invalid assertions, either in the public arena or through e-mail.

There is no method for an individual to provide comments or interact with the organization, other than those whom the organization personally selects, other than personal e-mail that they are under no obligation to respond to.

One of the reasons I mention the organization is they have provided constructive criticism to the autism speaks organization in the early days of the organization; autism speaks responded by altering elements of their marketing campaign that were suggested as being offensive, and now the organization is rewarded by answering to that criticism and responding in a reasonable manner, with criticisms that have gaping holes in them, easily evidenced with a cross analysis of the organization they endorse on the same page.

I think it is great that ASAN is finally acknowledging the value of parent run autism organizations, through proven effective organizations like the Autism Society of America, but it's not professionally appropriate to not apply the same principles of endorsement to other organizations, when the same standards are attained, and objectively evidenced.

It they don't endorse autism speaks that is fine, but it is not a professional practice to openly criticize an organization, with non-merited criticisms. It's really not an appropriate practice for any non-profit charitable organization to target other reputable non-profit organizations to discredit them. The ASAN non-profit organization is the only autism advocacy organization that I have seen do this.

The ASAN organization is now a non-profit organization in the same classification as autism speaks and ASA. They will likely be analyzed by the charity navigator organization in the coming year, scrutinized by third party evidence in the same way. While they might not provide an effective avenue to answer constructive criticism in the public arena, at this point in time, they will likely soon be subject to it, in the near future, as comments are open the general public, per those watch dog group organizations like the charity navigator organization and the BBB.

The ASAN organization is coming along nicely and does great things for individuals with autism in their advocacy efforts, but what seems like a personal issue with autism speaks, may reduce their credibility as a professional organization by anyone who peruses this fact sheet that offers non-merited criticism on autism speaks.

ASAN is viewed as a respected organization that is trusted by many autistic individuals. They are a role model of sorts for individuals that are part of autistic online communities. It can only benefit the organization as well as those who trust the organization to hold the same level of standards in providing a professional representation of the facts, like other non-charitable organizations, particularly when it concerns other advocacy organizations, whom have the same overall intentions of helping individuals with autism.

what website censured john robison.also what is the ASA

Well, I would just like to share some insights on this issue:

A leopard cannot change its spots.
A crow can never be white.
A pig will never stop wallowing in mud.
Crap will never smell like perfume.

In the same way, what is innately evil will remain evil.

first 2 you can with spray paint. The third, take away the mud. Fourth, yes itcan.

How is it innately evil?

first 2 you can with spray paint. The third, take away the mud. Fourth, yes itcan.

How is it innately evil?

Well, I was just presenting an adage.

Spray paint is not indelible, and in a short time, it will fade away, revealing their real colours.
Oh, by the way, spray paint is toxic.
Even if you take away the mud, a pig will still make attempts, even going as far as wallowing in its own crap, to cool itself down.
And no, crap is still crap, so it will never smell like perfume.

In the same way, and as I always say, what is innately evil will remain evil.

A sweeping statement indeed about a presumed dislike of an organisation

Errm, there was a poll on WP asking if we would rather not have been born. Most responses were "yes".
I certainly wish I had been terminated before birth.

The pain, oversensory issues, not being able to enjoy social situations is a disability more than a special ability. Something that I, for one, am not proud of.

1.a leopard would maul anything that would try to spray paint it
2.the toxic fumes from spray paint would kill a crowe
3.the pigs would likely go ferrell and decimate all the natural recources around them
so imperiousdork wins points 1 through 3 but delphiki wins point 4 and here is why:

if you sprayed enough perfume on poop the alchohol in the perfume would kill off the bacteria and the poop would loose its foul smell

1 and 2 the leopard could have been tranquilized first, nothing said the crow had to be alive. The statements say never even if the leopard were to maul me I would have still spray painted it.

Delphiki, even if one would attempt to mask the smell of crap with perfumes, the very chemicals that cause the smell (which is composed primarily of sulfur-based compounds called thiols) are still existent, and the smell of crap will still be there, no matter what. As for the leopard and the crow, what I was trying to say is that they cannot change their colours at will. But you know what? You proved a good point. A leopard and a crow can have intervention to have their colours changed -- but then, they will never be the same again. Paradoxically, however, they still remain a leopard and a crow.

Um... I guess you got it wrong, Delphiki. A turd is a turd. And even if you spray an entire can of Axe on it, it will still smell like turd.

And I never said Autism Speaks has changed. Yes, they may be like leopards whose colours have changed thanks to "intervention," but they still are leopards. Brutal, treacherous, and still vicious. So don't put words into my mouth, Delphiki. You are given no privilege to do so.

I never said it changed from being a turd. But it would smell like axe, not a turd.

I never said I had the privilege to put words in your mouth (unless I am feeding you alphabet soup I do not see how that is possible), I was saying what I got from your analogy. How is Autism Speaks Brutal, treacherous, and still vicious?

So autism speaks has changed for the better but it is still an autism organization. I now understand what you were saying.

You never said that it changed from a turd -- that I agree. But like I am pointing out to you, and in the chemical sense, the molecules that cause the turd to smell obnoxious are still present in the air, and even a canister of Axe won't eliminate them. It's more of like a short-term goal to mask the smell, but the long-term goal is to clean up the turd. Besides, no one in their right mind would spray a whole canister of Axe on turd in an attempt to make it smell like flower, wouldn't they?

And just to make things clear, you saying this:



is putting words in someone's mouth.

Brutal, well, not as much. Treacherous, obviously. Vicious, it's an understatement.