Autism Speaks at my school!! !!

Post Reply New Topic

That might be so, if the science hadn't already proven that autism is genetic.

If I ever ran into Autism Speaks, I'd speak up for myself, and make sure that everybody could hear me.

The problem with Autism Speaks is not that they are supporting a cure. The problem is that they do not try to help the people with Autism or their families. Whilst they are whipping up hysteria and chasing dreams of a cure and finding a cause, people on the Spectrum are desperately needing help. Address the issues/probelms that already exist before serching for a cure.

It's more than that though. They are so loud and in your face that other autism groups that might be raising funds for helping those who need help or getting training and or education to those who could use it most are getting lost in the noise.

The most insulting part of it is that AS' biggest loudest noise is that they're going to cure us... I don't need curing, I need support and understanding and tools for coping with my genetic differences.

Genetic PLUS environmental triggers. Environmental triggers that can be avoided with awareness.

If they went to my school?
I'd smoke them dead, and tear them apart. I'm known for being merciless when it comes to arguing.

Oh this is priceless... Have you got a link showing ANYTHING other than CONJECTURE that there is any kind of link to so-called environmental triggers... Just one, please? (Edited to state... link in humans not links that show autistic like syndromes in rats caused by mercury).

Of course, everyone has already seen this one: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceN ... 7120070219

I think it speaks volumes about "Autism Speaks" that they gave their donors' money to a gold-plated NYC lawfirm to threaten a fourteen-year-old autistic girl with a frivolous $90,000 lawsuit over her creation of a fair use parody of their own website. That's beyond pathetic.

Then, of course, there's the now infamous "documentary," Autism Every Day, which blatantly angled to portray autism in its worst possible light, including a histrionic display from their very own Senior Vice President, Alison Tepper Singer, in which she whined that she was tempted to KILL her autistic daughter.

In light of their origins and "star-chamber" roster of insiders, it should come as no surprise that "Autism Speaks" has been overtly hostile to anyone who has dared to question their agenda. But there is no segment of society to whom they have been more inexplicably hostile than Autistics themselves. The perspectives, feelings, opinions, deliberations and knowledge expressed by Autistics are of absolutely no interest or value to the self-proclaimed messiahs of "Autism Speaks." Their only use for us is as mute "poster children" in their vainglorious campaign to cash in on manufactured pity.

Imagine, if you will, the "good" that would be done if N.O.W. and the N.A.A.C.P. were headed by Trent Lott and David Duke, and staffed exclusively by rich white men ... you get the picture.

Where autism itself is concerned (as opposed to their core mission of fear-mongering and exploitation), the only hint of sobriety I've seen come out of "Autism Speaks" came with their eventual refusal to sign on with the anti-vax "autism-is-mercury-poisoning" zealots. Otherwise, when considering their complete track-record, there is nothing they have ever done that was so benevolent as to make for even a marginally equitable trade-off.

In other words, no, "Autism Speaks" will not be allowed to get away with purporting to speak for me. No-can-do.

It stuns me...

Being Aspie, I go through life speaking my opinion, one based on reality and fact and TONS of apsie induced research (can't help it, now, can I?) and I come to this conclusion and then one guy can get my back so up that I have to run around the internet grabbing links to sites that show him what I spent so much time learning, and I feel horrible because I'm being adversarial and maybe even awful to this guy...

And then the voice of reason shows up from several different sources... More than likely also Aspies...

and I feel sooooooooooo vindicated.

Am I the only one who second guesses their knowledge because someone from a place of ignorance suggested I should?

Thanks David.

Agreed.
My reaction if they came to my school?
Why, I'd quite simply point out how ridiculously biased their organization and people are who try to speak for us. Would I allow them to point out how I won't conform to their simplistic standards? absolutely not. In fact, if I was given a week without homework, with the information that they are coming, I could turn people in my school against them, if I tried hard enough. Now, if you take the statistics of people that are autistics, and do the math to figure out how many people with AS are at my school, and I could begin a protest.

tl;dr I'd wholeheartedly disapprove of them even thinking of coming to my school, and I would take action to make sure they stay out.

I think that Autism Speaks is make up of ignorant bullies, who were never taught about the importance of human diversity. If I was close to their office, I'd set it on fire, or blow it up. I'd do it at night, so that nobody would know, who did it.

NO WAY. Doing any sort of violence to any person or property of "Autism Speaks" would be a very serious strategic blunder. It would harm ALL of us, while making "heroes" of them.

If you can expose a pseudo-self-martyring con-man for what his is, fine. Or even if you let him run his inevitable course, he will ultimately trip over his own pretenses, and reveal his villain-hood to the world. That's as it should be.

BUT, if you seek to martyr him outright, you will only make him a "hero" in the eyes of the uninformed masses -- and that is the LAST thing any of us should want, especially in this case.

There's an old Chinese proverb:

"He who fights fire with fire burns down his house twice as fast."

Bad idea, to say the least. It would do immense harm to the cause.

On second hand, maybe I don't want to do that.

Yes I do.

Here's a statement on the ASA website.

http://www.autism-society.org/site/Page ... eh_mission

And here's a link to a Discover article.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/au ... n-the-head

Note that the Discover article contains the following paragraph:

Above all, there is a new emphasis on the interaction between vulnerable genes and environmental triggers, along with a growing sense that low-dose, multiple toxic and infectious exposures may be a major contributing factor to autism and its related disorders. A vivid analogy is that genes load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger. “Like cancer, autism is a very complex disease,” says Craig Newschaffer, chairman of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Drexel University School of Public Health, “and it’s exciting to start asking questions about the interaction between genes and environment. There’s really a very rich array of potential exposure variables."

The article also quotes another scientist:

“It’s interesting to see metabolic abnormalities addressed this way,” says Isaac Pessah, chairman of Molecular Biosciences and director of the Center for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention at the University of California at Davis. “I think glutathione balance in the kids is potentially very important in terms of toxic environmental exposures.”

There is a growing sense, Pessah adds, that our heavily industrialized, chemical-soaked environment—and the way it acts on vulnerable genes in some individuals—may be a major culprit."



Is all this "conjecture" at this time? I'm not sure. It may depend on what standard of proof you apply. Is global warming proven? Is Darwinian Evolution proven? The people quoted in the article are obviously more qualified to answer the question of how much of this is mere conjecture that than I am. But since this is the direction in which Science seems to be headed, and since environmental triggers can be avoided, it's clear that Autism research is much, much more complicated than simply being a search for a prenatal test upon which to base a decison about an abortion.

Um... no, you don't.

Presenting proof for the idea that someone who is ALREADY autisitic COULD have their situation aggravated by the introduction of mercury poisoning or some other environmental factor does not now suggest that someone who is NOT already autistic is about to BECOME so just because they get a vaccine or live beside a mercury mine.

You must not be an Aspie because for those of us who are Aspies, there is an enormous difference between "conjecture" and fact.

Is global warming proven? Who cares, we're not discussing whether or not "Global Warming" is conjecture, we were discussing whether or not vaccines trigger autism, let me say those words again because it is what I am questioning: "TRIGGER AUTISM".

The challenge was not to prove that environmental factors might aggravate autism, but rather to show that it is the TRIGGER for the autism. You have failed to do that.

What you have proven is that it is possible that environmental aspects MAY aggravate autism, but that conjecture doesn't make the fact that autism is genetic any less fact. Hell, anyone here can link you to studies that show that mercury poisoning in rats causes "autism-like" symptoms, but that doesn't mean in any way shape or form that 1. there is any link between the "autism-like" symptoms and actual autism and 2. assuming that these rats actually tested positively, genetically, for autism, then where is the slippery-slope connection to show that it was CAUSED by the mercury poisoning... Physical impossibilities aside unless you want to really believe that mercury poisoning and other vaccines are capable of making genetic alterations in children that science is unaware of and 3. If vaccines were an environmental aggravation for autism, why does it only affect some people? Why not everyone?

Let's be clear on what we are really discussing here.

The fact of the matter is that Autism Speaks, the largest, most vocal, most politically connected Autism organization in the world advocates and supports eugenics.

Eugenics focuses on selective breeding, although, these days, people like to pretend that it simply means prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.

Now, let's go way out on a crazy limb here. Let's ASSUME for the sake of argument that the purpose for the genetic testing isn't to selectively breed autism out of our society... Then what is the purpose for invading the child in-vitro? IF it can be tested for ex-vitro, then what difference is a few months or even weeks going to make to early intervention, it's not like you can intervene with the autism onset in the womb, after all. So, what is the purpose of it if not to give parents the opportunity to eradicate their child before it is born? Is it just to say, hey, we can't vaccinate this foetus once it's born because it has the genes that could become autism??? Why not simply test the newborn? BECAUSE, the point of the test is not the test, it is to give the parents of autistic foetus' the OPPORTUNITY to CURE their child... ie, perform an abortion so Mom and Pop don't have to deal with how severe their child's autism MAY be. I say may be, because not all environmental factors aggravate all autistics or we'd all be like the kids in the AS videos, wouldn't we?

Ultimately, this is the key reason why most of us Aspies have a serious problem with Autism Speaks. Yes, we want our symptoms alleviated, maybe even eradicated, yes we'd love it if we could be less clumsy or better in social situations or have less OCD or whatever other symptoms we manifest, BUT the only way to "cure" a genetic "defect" is to eliminate the child carrying the gene and most of us (with the exception of those suffering suicidal depression) do NOT wish to be eliminated.

THAT, my friend is the reason why so many people feel that eugenics is immoral and to suggest that Eugenics might be used for ANY other reason is foolish and endangering to all of us.

Let's assume that your family has a history of autism, your little ten day old baby ready for his first round of vaccines and you as a parent think that vaccines are going to aggravate his autism gene or defect whichever it turns out to be, then don't vaccinate: that is your OPTION as a parent, but don't you dare suggest for one second that the reason the child is going to be autistic because he gets vaccinated. That is just plain wrong. Why do we know it is wrong? Because children who have never been vaccinated are autistic anyway, the lack of vaccine didn't change that fact.

What you suggest is a damned good reason to do research and to map the genes or the genetic defects or the combination of genes that cause autism. Research is a good way to learn how to deal with the symptoms and to find out what AGGRAVATES those genes and causes some of us to be the way I am and some to be the way the children in AS videos are. What's the difference between them and me? The simple severity of our autistic symptoms.