Autism Speaks Not Recommended by BBB

Post Reply New Topic

If it really came to it, I am sure someone on the spectrum and slightly unhinged would blow up a few abortion clinics and make the point nice and clear. There are plenty more potential Ted Kaczynskis out there, just waiting for their fuses to be lit. A test for autism would light a good few fuses, firing the row of loose cannons rather nicely in more or less the right direction.

Pretty much any realistic type of test would have to be genetic in basis and genes are heritable. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that given the right set of circumstances, someone with an ASC can thrive, which means most likely the influence of the society the individual with an ASC lives in has a bearing on how autistic someone with an ASC is measured or determined to be.

Unless you have a realistic proposal as to how the facts could unfold differently, I rest my case.

No, doesn't work that way (if only proving something was that easy ). You have to prove your statement by backing it up. Notice how I qualified my last post about the onus of proof? That's because I had a feeling you were already going this direction. I am under no requirement to come up with something that satisfies you as "realistic" and your statement is not rendered any "truer" thereby. At present, it is but your own opinion stated as "fact".

However, let me also say that your opinion is fine to put forth, by the way! Your opinion is welcomed here. We are people like you and you don't need to use the mechanisms you have developed in order to be taken seriously when surrounded by NTs. I bring this up because of your low post count - this makes me assume that this is your first time on this board and I'm taking it on faith that you're not a returning user making a new username to stir up trouble. Although it is odd you don't have an intro, now that I look... Meh. I will take you at face value.

If you still want to pursue the 'fact' angle and have no link or stats, you could also put forth "self credentials" like "I am a geneticist" or "I work for a company that makes tests like these", etc to make your position stronger. Without knowing what has you so convinced, my guess would be that you've thought about this a good deal and followed it through logically until you feel you have exhausted all the possible paths, leaving you with what "must be" fact. This is a sign of a good, logical mind. Just break that link between personal exhaustive testing and fact. They don't equate.



It sounds an awful lot like you are saying that blowing up abortion clinics would be a shot "in ... the right direction". Goodness, I certainly hope you wouldn't advocate an action like that! However, if you feel this might really happen, this would be a good reason to discourage Autism Speaks from demonizing autism. That way, if/when they get their test, it would be less likely to be used by the general populace.

Hang on here - let us summarise the argument so far:
- You made the claim that if there were a prenatal test, 90% of autistic fetuses would be aborted.
- You then claimed that this claim held because there is a tautology between autism and downs syndrome.
- I then pointed out that your tautology is false. I also pointed out that autism likely has a genetic basis and what shape it is almost certainly going to take, serving as a counter example to your argument. The ball is clearly now in your court.
Carrying on from that point, although the onus is not on me to make the argument, I can quite happily point you to further information. See for example this article (one of the authors, Plomin, is a very well respected biologist) , which points to a lack of multiple bases for autism, making the concept of "the" pronatal test unlikely: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v9/ ... n1770.html.
The evidence of a genetic basis is rather obvious, for one it almost certainly runs in families. But if you really want to go to the cutting edge, look at all those systems biology projects ( e.g. long link wrapped by lau ) which are currently getting grant funding. Really it is being turned into a mathematical biology project, which to some extent is an area of my expertise. If you look at the sort of problems Mathematical Biology is used to tackle, you can guess what the outcome is likely to be. The results that they are getting tend towards autistic traits being the way I said they would be and indeed inherited from their parents.

One thing that I should point out, argument by intimidation or lecture tends not to work on me. Being someone in the academic circles, I tend to know how papers should be used.

I wouldn't directly advocate anything like it myself - merely I am pointing out the likely consequences. Though I should add, if it really is the armmagedon you fear, then you should at least be up for frightening a few doctors.

The following political fallout would be interesting of course - it would be a good basis which could be utilised to further the real cause. Which is where autistic people are given the opportunities and respect that they deserve. This current fixation on a pre-natal test is getting in the way of resolving our real problems.

Very well reasoned. I like it.

I would prefer to address the "intimidation" point first. I apologize if I am coming across this way. There is no data about you so I have no idea who I am dealing with. I went from "disgruntled banned user" to "smart and angry kid" to realizing that you are educated, quite logical, and have a real mathematical aptitude (based on the correctly-used terms probability, variance, and distribution it is likely a statistical or research specialty). You are also either in the UK or hail from same (based on your spelling and sentence structure (specifically, "summarise" gave you away )). Not knowing your age, I assumed at first you were very young, but am now revising that to guess that you are in your 20's or maybe early 30's. Quite possibly in your academic position you are used to having people take your word as factual. So what do you do, exactly? Are you a student? Graduate? Research fellow? You don't need to answer if you're feeling pressed. I'm simply asking to lend even more credence to your argument. Please do not post something like the name of your university or personally identifying information!

Of course, I cannot verify any of my assumptions based on your profile or anything you've directly stated to me, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I tend to phrase my discussions based on the person I am dealing with. Crass and base for those who respond in kind, ranging upwards in refinement for the more erudite respondent. You seem to be trending towards the latter and I have no desire to drive away an educated reply by coming across as intimidating or lecturing. Your honest feelings about this are appreciated. If this is upsetting, then let's please stop before I really offend you.

Still here? Okay, one thing that we need to address is that I did note (in my attempt to learn how to respond to you) that your threads show a clear disdain for any who oppose Autism Speaks. You've even posted such as off-topic text in some threads (much to the confusion of the other posters). I reference your post at the bottom of this thread on Bill Clinton here. I have no idea why you feel this way; you have not yet elaborated. Perhaps it will reduce any ire you have towards me to learn that my focus is not "anti-Autism Speaks", but "pro-ASAN".

Moving on, then. Your excellent (can I triple-underline?) summation has shown me that we aren't talking about the same point at all! Gah! Your issue is with my statement about Down's and Autism. My issue is the explicit use of the word "fact" when it is clearly opinion. This summary was quite useful, a technique that I should try in future discussions. Sincere: Thank you for teaching me something. Rare when an old dog (cat?) can learn new tricks .

Regarding the Down's/Autism termination rate:
You're absolutely correct, of course. I cannot state it as fact that the Autism termination rate would equal the Down's termination rate. I was using it as a "given". You must have thought I was crazy if I gave the impression that I was defending this idea. The link I provided was the factual data about Down's termination rate only. Please allow me to rephrase this section in a way that would have no correlation with Down's: IF a reliable test were developed, do you feel there would be any change at all in termination rate if parents knew they were having an autistic child (with or without the idea of autism being demonized in their minds)? If so, we can continue. If not, then we should stop. Nothing I am putting forth can be of any use if you completely disagree with the fundamental premise. You should disregard the rest of this and skip to the section on "tautologies" below.

Regarding you stating that the Down's/Autism correlation is false:
Actually, you didn't explicitly point out that the stated correlation was false here. However, you DID explicitly state this in your discussion with Pandd here that I found in another thread which was astonishingly similar to this one. I was quite surprised that he used the same correlation I did! We're not the same user, I swear! Still: Given. I accept that you now say this is false here too.

Regarding your position "the fact [Emphasis mine. Note: THIS <-- is my hang-up area right here] that the test would reveal the little bit of Autism in each parent - nor will it be able to tell if a child will get Autism, or what degree. Rather, it will just give a probability along with a variance on a distribution.":
You don't know that. This is well-reasoned opinion and opinion possibly backed by good solid links to studies supporting the opinion. So let's look at the studies. The researchers start off with "We argue that...", a direct quote from very first sentence of the Perspective of the very interesting source material you provided here (I also fixed your link so it works now -- you inadvertently caught the "period" there -- hazards of HTML/BBCODE)). This paper is an argument in support of this position. Be wary of considering it factual. Even the researchers know this is not so and take care to emphasize that as they begin! Right away, things are not looking good for supporting a fact. Let's continue using your source material.

Your statement: Pretty much any realistic type of test would have to be genetic in basis and genes are heritable.
vs.
Your source material: "molecular genetic studies, which have resulted in little by way of replicated linkage, should abandon the search for genes ‘for autism’ as a whole."
You are saying that the test MUST be genetic and then citing a link that says we should abandon the search for genes for autism as a whole. You do realize that you're throwing me links to things that run contrary to what you're saying, right? In fact, your source material goes on to say that (in their opinion) autism is not only influenced by genetics, but also neural and cognitive aspects. With these two other aspects involved, one could equally claim that the test would have to be cognitive in basis, right? This is all from your own source material!

Your other link is to a research grant for 2010 research that hasn't even been performed yet and, therefore, cannot be considered anything but hypothesis until the results are known. I would not guess at the research outcome. I was very surprised that you suggested I do. This data certainly cannot be used as fact or supporting any fact. It's like a cookie that isn't even baked yet.

Summary:
While you still cannot state that it is a fact that any test "would reveal the little bit of autism in each parent...", you have a well-considered opinion and additional credibility from being in the field of Mathematical Biology. Unfortunately, your opinion is not at all supported by your references, however to be fair we were arguing different points and you may not have posted links to support what I was thinking you were supporting. If this is the case, then my link analysis becomes irrelevant. I would ask you to post new links supporting your "fact" statement. Overall, I cannot dispute that such a test may be developed in the future that can do as you claim. But this is not my point. My point is that your statement is not fact. Not yet. You cannot represent it as such.

On Tautologies:
This section is purely for if you want to learn something and that I haven't ticked you off so much that you're completely closed to me now. The Down's/Autism termination rate sentence is actually not a tautological statement -- at least not in the definition used by Webster's or in terms of logic (the preceding underlines are links to the definitions - I state this only because you're new here and may mistake my links for sarcastic emphasis (which they are not)). If you have a definition I am not aware of, please share it with me. The statement "Your Tautology is false" can never be made since all tautologies are, by their very definition, true (or simply redundant)! Please consider this example "logic" tautology (from Princeton University): "He is either brave or he is not brave". The sentence is true for all values and is a tautology. Similarly, I would have needed to say something like "An individual is either autistic or not autistic" for it to be a tautology. But regardless of definitions, I know what you want to say: I put forth as axiomatic that the rate of Down's/Autism terminations would be identical.

:laugh: That seems like quite an investigation you have carried out on me. Mostly you are right, I am from the UK, currently doing a masters degree (though I have wider academic interests than mathematics). I guess though I am not the type to be easily intimidated though.

Well I guess there are two beliefs of mine that I should point out here up front. Largely that the world would be a better place for people like ourselves if no one had the right to be offended (mostly it is one way) and that I like to assume nothing. Maybe they are just from my background though.

I am not pro-Autism speaks - I probably should point this out. But I should add that they do more the long cause than ASAN currently do, at least they put things on the map. Where as ASAN - from the political perspective, do incredibly little. Of course, they have opposite intentions, but good intentions are never as good as actions.

I think what a fact actually is happens to be quite an interesting question - in science certainly there are no real facts, just orthodoxy (but in science the current theory is treated as workable fact, until we get something better). This is my line in this case - the most plausible option is my line. Unless of course a bullet comes along and hits it (possible, but rather unlikely).

On the presumption that the test would be medically licensed and there was no intervention on the lines that I previously suggested, then of course the abortion rate would go up. Of course it would, parents still abort for things like club foot in the UK. But I doubt it would be at the rate of Downs, somehow. It certainly would not be armeggedon in any case.

Down's is pretty much the stock candidate people bring out for Abortion these days - probably because it was one of the easiest things to test for initially.

It has been followed up on since 2006 - I do have further studies saved on my laptop which I have read through, but cannot access at the minute (my laptop is elsewhere). But there have been stronger arguments, the problem is if I link any of them, then most people won't be able to access them. You can find lots of recent papers which back up the view expressed in the paper that I linked.

It says (and a systems biology paper which I read a little while ago backs up) that there is no single basis for autism - that is nearly almost certainly the case. The reason why this holds true is because of how autism is defined, it is defined with respect to society. To be a fully functioning member of society, you need to satisfy all of its social expectations (before anyone puts up a list of things that people with ASD's cannot do/ may have difficulty in doing - remember they learned it from their parents). Autism essentially is a failure to satisfy the set of social expecations that society lays out, the reason for this we shall call X. X most likely has multiple solutions. Moreover, there are other attributes to a person which determine how much they can satisfy society and its expecations. Current research last time I looked expects autism to be majorly genetic, but they cannot find the gap. From my point of view, this gap is most likely to be made up of the circumstances the individual develops under (and hence the reason why some interventions have evident success to an extent) along with the other properties that an individual has.

Good luck with carrying out a cognitive test on a baby. A neural one would be very difficult, certainly it cannot be done with todays technology. The most they can do is show that babies like Neighbours if their mothers watch it when they are pregnant - though part of the experiment has to be carried out when they are born.

If you read those research proposals - they do justify why they are doing it. Certainly, my line on genetics is current orthodoxy, which as I said, in science is the nearest thing to a fact.

As I have already said, in science there is no such thing really as a fact. It would spoil the fun if there were. But even though science might be occasionally wrong, the best gamble is to agree with the current line.

I guess here again I betray my mathematical background - where occasionally lecturers will state "theorem: X and Y are equivalent statements, then go on to call it a tautology. I provided a counter example, which kind of removes the theorem and we would call that a false tautology, informally speaking.

One final point I should make - we are on an AS forum. The last thing that I would expect is anyone is to comply with every social convention, nor am I going to care or be offended if people here don't comply with them. I don't.

Wow... what a great reply. I don't think I've had such a good conversation in quite a very long time. You're not easily intimidated at all, are you? Not even by a HUGE wall of text. Thank you for taking the time to wade through it all!

I feel exactly the same way. One of my most difficult challenges is how to say what I need to say without sounding combative, offensive or ... (may I?) intimidating I have been told this often. People don't seem to mind the content of what I say, but the method of delivery needs work. It's a large part of why I'm here.



That's a good point. I wish there was a way to combine the two organizations and come out with something recognized, politically powered and funded but with a stronger dose of good intentions.



Now THAT is a really good point. It seems to me that any "fact" of science can always be invalidated by throwing something else into the mix. For example "Oh that supposed 'law' of yours doesn't apply in Quantum Mechanics", "Oh, that behavior is incorrect in light of String Theory", or "two plus two is four?? Well clearly you aren't considering a non-Euclidian geometric system". Gah! Actually I like this kind of thinking. I think it helps to define the boundaries of our current rules.



That's interesting. If your expected findings do eventually fill that gap do you expect the whole nature v. nurture debate to cloud the issue? Or do you think it will never reach a threshold of proof high enough to take it past a similar scientific gap (like our fossil record, for example) whereby the gap will simply have to be "lived with" while the theory moves on as "the most accepted/most plausible explanation"?



Oh, now I get it. You're saying that you accept that there is a three part cause but any in vitro test will be limited to genetic because the other two parts aren't feasible until the neonatal phase. I thought you simply weren't considering the other two parts at all and had become fixated (a hazard of our AS) on the one cause only. I apologize for not giving you enough credit there.



I really like this. I'd set the last sentence as my tagline if I weren't so narcissistic



Got it. I like to think of myself "to words" as you are "to the maths" if that makes sense. It's my joie de vivre.

Summation: So it looks like we actually weren't completely disagreeing. I was making assumptions that you hadn't learned certain tenets (although given the education level of the Great Unwashed, I hope you can forgive me there) and you were assuming that I would automatically assume that you had thought about this far more than I thought that you did (somehow, I think you'll have no trouble following that twisted sentence). However, I wouldn't say that we are currently 100% in agreement, more like 80% +/- 3% which is probably as much agreement as anybody can realistically hope for

Thank you again for this quite enjoyable conversation!

Good.

Aside from the fact they want to commit genocide, check this out:

Highest Paid Executive: Geri Dawson, Chief Science Officer
Compensation*: $669,751

At a CHARITY. And it's made even worse by this:

This organization is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.

Now this pisses me off.

Wanna get even more pissed off? Out of their income of over $65 million, how much do you think went to services for helping autistic people and their parents? $30 million maybe? $20 million? $10 million at least, right?

Nope, UNDER $1 MILLION.

For a Corporation with $65 million to spend, their payroll is low. Goldman Sachs they are not.

Their Charter states they are raising money for research, not for the direct support of autistics. Some would fit under research.

I really like the ViperaAspis/FlyingAeroplane conversation. Our "Facts" are at best a state of the art guess, and from what we know, this is not like Down's, and while it may be inherited, any likely test would say that University Professors should not have children. They will not fit the Normal Distrabuton.

It is not possible to do research with limits, to never discover something that might be used for abortion. Most abortions are not for any reason, they just happen.

I do support research, and following John Elder Robison's posts I have discovered some things I would like to know more about, brought in part by grants from Autism Speaks, one potential "Cure", I might sign up for.

Science should have ethics, but politics is something else. We do not create Science, it is a tool to discover what was always there, and knowing is always better.

I can tell half the people that their child would be born with an IQ of less than 100, and if they chose abortion so be it.

But this thread was about the BBB, and I have noticed that Wrong Planet does not display the BBB Logo. So if you find meaning in that, perhaps you should seek approved sites.

I have looked into Autism Speaks, I find them a model of a well governed corporation, and I am impressed by the world class quality of the people who serve on their boards. They are giving it the "Manhatten Project" method.

While Autism is still a mystery, never before has such power been focused on the human brain. Autism may be the reason, but the research is far reaching, and well worth the effort.

We have spent a lot more money, and badly, on Cancer, other ways we fail, but this is looking at intelligence, and how we grow. Cancer treatments have a limited usage, but what is being learned of the brain has broad application.

As for objections, Autism is rare, and I am sure foreclosures have lead to more abortions that there are autistics. .

Some video once made, a few statments by people with no background or education, do not amount to a hate movement, except for the protestors. Their main demand does seem to be, give us that money, not science. When research shows that there will never be a likely test that could lead to abortion, the protesters do not seem to care enough to read the research.

The autistic should put forth their case for being included in life, everyone should, and those who can should donate to scientific research, for it is the one thing that might bring a better world.

Right now, with as little money is available, research, and early intervention give the largest results for the money spent. Science is for the future.

So I thought, but reading John Elder Robison I found treatments that work on adults, old people, and I would give it a try. Science is always coming up with more wonders.

I am sure that a "Cured" Inventor could still rant like Duckman before coffee.

There are many problems with that, though, Inventor.

First, Autism Speaks isn't meant to be a corporation, it's meant to be a chairty, and a charity is meant to help people, especially since they recieve part of their income from donations from the public. Goldman Sachs, as far as I'm concerned, can pay their employees as much as they damn well like, as long as it's not money they got from the taxpayer of course.

Second, the research Autism Speaks endorese and fund is not supported by the autistic community. Yes, a few of us do want a cure or whatever, but the majority of us are against it, and even more are against prenatal testing - something which Autism Speaks are very fond of. Yet, this organisation claims to speak for autistic people, and sues those same autistic people if they disagree with them. To add insult to injury, they produce propaganda which shows us as useless ret*ds then walk away with salaries of over $100,000! I don't know about you, but I think that's a pisstake.

If a male - who obviously had no idea what it's like to be pregant - started an organisation to speak for pregnant women, then produced adverts showing pregnant woman as some sort of monsters that needed to be wiped from existance (which is exactly what prenatal testing aims to do, BTW), then sued anyone who disagreed with him and walked away with a massive salary, would we put up with that? OF COURSE NOT. Autism Speaks only get away with their crap because they exploit the general public's ignorance of autism.

That's why education is the key, and ignorance is what needs to be cured.

Didn't AS support Jenny McCarthy's "research" on autism being caused by vaccines at one time? All the evidence I need. I don't see how anyone can. Like I love Chelsea Handler, but every once in a while Jenny McCarthy comes on her show to plug her charity/book. I think Jenny has been on her show more than any celebrity.


I digress...

No doubt, some of the humans involved have behaved like humans.

When a large faction blames vaccines, it is something to look into, and the link has been disproven.

Genetic study is likely to produce something, but I would agree that selling it as a tool for abortion, like Down's, was in poor taste, and bad science, even if marketing did think it would bring in the money.

As for the $100,000 jobs, they are in New York, it does cost more to live there.

From the dark ages of autism, five years ago, they did jump in and deal with all of the thoughts, except they never did contact me about my study on Demonic Possession.

They went with Boards, made of of people who were over educated and outstanding in their field,

Those people have told them what is science, and what is talk show TV. They have listened as they were told that "Fixing" DNA is Science Fiction, and all genetic tests show that autism does have a genetic base, but it is broad, and there is no single defect that, like Down's, could be a marker for abortion.

So yes, they did explore all paths, and hired guides, and funded research, which showed that there is a range of human brain development, and autism is just one outcome.

I have only heard of the research in the last year or so, it has changed the direction of dealing with autism, eradication is out, early detection and childhood intervention is in, and some of the discoveries have wide reaching applications. Autism is rare, some of the treatments may be a cure, for the most common human problem, depression. Some one in seven winds up taking drugs for depression, so a non drug treatment could be useful.

Psychology has been a quasi science of guesses. All they had was a label, and available drugs.

This study of autism is putting science behind the human brain, and has much wider applications.

No doubt, Autism Speaks did run with the quacks, explored all ends, and disproved them. Clearing the field was needed, and now Autism Speaks holds the field, and has put together a great team on the boards who they do listen to.

When nothing was know, Jenny McCarthy could write a book, the celebrity view, and get published. Now that would be fact checked and would not get into print.

What was a few years ago, and what is now, are not the same. Cleaning up the field, bringing in real science, has taken time. Now the path is great people on the boards directing real money at the science. Early discovery and childhood intervention have been shown to work.

In autism brain development takes a turn, which can be put back on track early, with good results. I was happy that the future would have treatment, and hence less problems, but treatments are coming up that can change adult brains.

The science shows that autism is a differance in thought and perception, which we knew, but it also shows areas of the brain that process thought, and those differ with the autistic. Studies also show they differ with the Chinese, who process math with the visual center, where Eurorpeans use the words center.

A lot of autism seems to be caused by underactive brain centers, the ones that read other people.

The focus of intervention is to activate those centers. There is also work in using magnetic induction to wake up those centers.

Just because you never used it, due to who knows, it is still your brain, and turning on those centers it is still you, now with more skills. This method can be very targeted.

For autism it does develop social skills, but it could have a lot of other applications.

Many conditions seem that the person is trapped in a brain loop, and patterns can be changed within the brain.

In the dark days, Electro convulsive shock was used, it was crude, but subjects reported it worked. Patterns were broken up, new ones formed, the people liked the result.

I also have heard reports that I have never felt so relaxed, so comfortable being myself, so less stressed about everything, than after my heart attack.

Targeted electromagnetic induction seems to offer the promise of regulating the electric load with less invasive or life threatening methods.

Autism, a V-8 hitting on six. It runs, but it does have eight, and they are yours.

So if it was possible, I would want to take my brain for a tuneup, get the full range. It is getting more of me.

So the study of autism has produced an emerging technology which shows the promise of treating all mental conditions, and maybe heart attacks before they happen, in a non invasive non drug way.

This would not have happened without Autism Speaks, our annoying self centered views, and a lot of money to find out why.

It has happened, Autism Speaks has broken free of their early not knowing, and we too should follow the science, and not what Jenny McCarthy said five years ago. If abortion would have worked, it would have been done, but it is not a genetic defect, proven by Autism Speaks funding, it is inactive brain centers that can be turned on.

Early childhood intervention works, and targeted magnetic induction works and has a much wider range.

The study of autism may greatly reduce the need for mental hospitals, the use of drugs, by treating the problem, not the symptom, and prevent heart attacks.

A better life is assured for children, even adult autistics, and magnetic induction may even cure NTs. Just as we are stick in the Special Interests part of the brain, they are stuck in the social is everything part.

Science discovering the facts, developing methods, and better functioning brains all around, give the best hope for a better world.

Looking back, I agree, everyone was wrong about autism. Autism Speaks dealt with all of those wrongs, it was the only game in town. They did study quack science, shot it down, and replaced it with the best that hairless ground apes can come up with.

Looking at now and forward, the boards will keep marketing in check, and never has such a broad collection of minds looked at the basic problem, how the human mind develops.

It is producing results, facts, science, and a future.

It is still the only game in town. We need the results, they are coming around.

"We awaken in others the same attitude of mind that we hold toward them." Elbert Hubbard

From the bottom of the page

That's a generic thing. It's saying, whatever the evaluation, however good or bad, it's not a recommendation. They don't recommend or not. They provide information. In this case, that Autism Speaks didn't meet their standards in one very specifically stated thing.

And frankly, that one thing would I think not make be decide not to give to them, if I other wise thought they'd merit a donation.

No it's not, it's BBB covering their ass if Autism Speaks decide to change one of the things they complained about.

It's not what? You seem to be agreeing with my statement that what I quoted is a generic thing. "Covering their asses" wouldn't after all, be unique to that page.

And that's the ONLY place that the word "recommend" appears. So, to say they don't recommend something, with the implication that they DO recommend some charities, but not this one, or that they specifically dis-recommend this one, that's not merited based on what's there.