Autism Speaks to confusion within its ranks
Autism Speaks in two minds
The furore over the “I am autism” video commissioned by Autism Speaks is reported online in the New Scientist today. The report links to the video, which is strange because when Alan Griswold sent an open letter protesting about the video to Dr Geraldine Dawson, the chief science officer at Autism Speaks she replied as follows.
Dear Mr. Griswold,
Thank you very much for sending me your letter and telling me about your perspective and feelings regarding the “I Am Autism” video. I understand and respect your perspective and I am truly sorry that the film offended you. The video was not intended to reflect Autism Speaks broader viewpoint or attitude toward persons with autism spectrum disorder. Rather, it was created by two fathers of children with autism – Billy Mann, a Grammy-nominated songwriter, music producer and Autism Speaks board member, and Alfonso Cuarón, an Academy award-nominated film director. It is based on a personal poem written by Mr. Mann. It is an intensely personal expression by these two fathers. It was their hope that the piece would inspire other voices and artists in the autism community. It has greatly offended some people, however, and we have removed it from our website.(emphasis added)
Again, thank you for writing to me and sharing your thoughts. You can rest assured that I will continue to advocate for a respectful and compassionate attitude and support for persons with autism spectrum disorder.
Sincerely,
Geri Dawson
While it is true that the page containing the video is an orphan page and the revised press release does not contain the video, it is still up on the Autism Speaks official You Tube video channel. and the revised press release still refers to the film as follows.
Academy Award-nominated director Alfonso Cuarón and Grammy-nominated songwriter/producer Billy Mann unveiled a video they created especially for this event, called “I Am Autism.” The powerful short film combines footage of individuals with autism and their families from around the world with a poem written by Mr. Mann read by a multitude of voices to show the global face of autism.
So, what is it to be? Is it An intensely personal expression by these two fathers, or the global face of autism?
Marc Sirkin, chief community officer at Autism Speaks who was interviewed by New Scientist does little to resolve this contradiction. According to him,
the film is “a personal statement based on the viewpoint of the two parents who created the film”.
Two parents? Alongside the video on the Autism Speaks video channel is another from AS co-founder Suzanne Wright. We are invited to
Watch Autism Speaks Co-founder Suzanne Wright deliver a personal message asking supporters to help create the film “I am Autism”
On September 22, 2009, First Ladies and dignitaries from around the world will attend Autism Speaks’ Second Annual United Nations World Focus on Autism. At this meeting, Academy Award-nominated director Alfonso Cuarón and Grammy-nominated songwriter/producer Billy Mann will unveil their video “I am Autism.”
Alfonso and Billy need your help to create this unique film – send us video footage of people from around the world who are on the autism spectrum. The footage will underscore the gravity of this global health crisis, and inform those in a position to effect a change. Alfonso and Billy are looking for footage of people of all ages, all socioeconomic backgrounds and all ethnicities.
The film was being promoted at the highest levels within Autism Speaks. One of the film makers, Billy Mann, is a board member of Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks organized the collection of parents’ videotapes and handled all the necessary legal stuff like disclaimers and permissions. They chose to launch it at a high profile event at the United Nations and it formed the centrepiece of their original press release for the event. It is still on their website and their video channel.
I think it is reasonable to assume that if the film had received universal acclaim rather than the widespread criticism that was sufficient to propel the controversy into the mainstream media, Autism Speaks would have taken the credit instead of back pedalling and trying to present the film as a personal statement by two fathers that had nothing to do with them.
Autism Speaks’ revealing remarks
Marc Sirkin defended the video in these terms.
“We have received both positive and negative feedback. Some parents have found the video inspiring and have thanked us for showing it. Others have been offended by it. We believe that all perspectives are valid and need to be heard and respected. No one perspective can ever be the definitive voice of autism.”
It seems to me that he is referring to parental responses here and ignoring the fact that most of the protests have been organized by autistic self advocates. The online response mostly articulates the views of these same autistic self advocates. This parent centred viewpoint is reflected in the statement that “all perspectives are valid and need to be heard and respected.”
Really? Even those that have been discounted after thorough investigation and research?; Refrigerator mothers anybody? How about holding therapy or packing? That one is still going on in France supported by psychoanalytical perspectives on autism. How about exorcism?
Clearly not all perspectives are valid or deserving of respect. But Autism Speaks has always been an uneasy alliance of two perspectives; the mainstream scientific consensus that autism is a brain disorder of genetic origin and the popular belief that it is primarily a whole body disease with environmental causes. The former perspective suggests a strategy of genetic research aimed at prevention and cure. The latter wants research into toxins and biomedical cures. It has become increasingly anti-vaccine and anti-science. Both exist within Autism Speaks in an uneasy alliance in which both perspectives are valid.
The one perspective that is not represented within Autism Speaks is that proposed by autistic self advocates, namely that the most disabling aspects of autism are social in origin. The problem is understanding. If we make the effort to understand autism and provide appropriate support at a community level autistic people would stand more chance of making their way in the world without having to face stigma and prejudice. Will Autism Speaks ever accept that view as “valid and need[ing] to be heard and respected?” When can we expect to see videos from autistics and their allies being presented by Autism Speaks?
Pingback by Eastwick Imdb Social Networking Sites « Celebrity Buzz | September 30th, 2009
[...] blog-thing : Autism Speaks to confusion within its ranks [...]
Comment by Anne | September 30th, 2009
I think it’s embarrassing that this short film was shown by Autism Speaks at the UN shortly after the United States finally got around to signing the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. When the US signed on to the Convention last July, President Obama made a speech, saying that, 75 years ago, “fear and prejudice towards Americans with disabilities was the norm.” If the I am Autism film is any indication, fear and prejudice are still the norm for autistic people.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides that measures should be taken to raise awareness regarding persons with disabilities, to foster respect for their rights and dignity, to combat stereotypes and prejudices, to promote awareness of their capabilities and contributions, and to promote positive perceptions of them. It’s unfortunate that possibly the most influential autism charity in the United States would flout the Convention in front of the whole world by showing the “global face of autism” as a monster.
Pingback by Twitter Trackbacks for blog-thing : Autism Speaks to confusion within its ranks [actionforautism.co.uk] on Topsy.com | October 1st, 2009
[...] blog-thing : Autism Speaks to confusion within its ranks actionforautism.co.uk/2009/09/30/autism-speaks-to-confusion-within-its-ranks – view page – cached _your description goes here_ — From the page [...]
Comment by Anna Hayward | October 1st, 2009
How can it be a “global health crisis” when there is the same number of autistic people now as there always have been? Roughly 1% of the population. Thanks for noticing us, Autism Speaks, but no thanks. You know, old Nietzche once said that any disabled person who didn’t commit suicide was a disgrace to his country, but I thought views like that had died out, replaced with a new understanding that saw disabled people as something other than burdens. Apparently not, if this video is anything to go by.
And they say autistic people lack empathy. Did these guys spend 5 seconds considering how autistic people might feel about being characterised in this way?
Comment by jonathan | October 1st, 2009
“Really? Even those that have been discounted after thorough investigation and research?; Refrigerator mothers anybody? How about holding therapy or packing? That one is still going on in France supported by psychoanalytical perspectives on autism”
Interesting that a statement like this would be found on an autism hub blog, as it is the ND movement who is doing more than anybody to bring back the Bettleheim era, by claiming that procure autistics were taught to hate themselves by their mothers as at least some hub members and neurodiversity members have told me. This is coming from someone who themselves and their mother actually lived through the Bettleheim era, having spent ten years of psychoanalysis in the late 1950s and 1960’s when that was the intervention of choice for persons with problems like mine.
I guess the self-stimulatory behaviors, intellectual impairments in some autistics, the fact that they are too impaired to work, some autistics bite themselves and pound their heads into cement, have sensitivities to loud noises, can’t speak in a significant percentage of cases are all social in origin, right mike?
Comment by Amy | October 1st, 2009
I am appauled and disappointed that Autism Speaks has removed the video from their site. I submitted footage of my family, my son and myself and was chosen to be a part of the video. Hasn’t anyone ever heard of poetry, creative expression, and inspiration. As having gone to a very well known midwestern college, I understand that everyone has different perspectives and points of view. However, as a parent with an Autism child I can relate strongly to Mr. Mann’s poem. My son is 3 1/2 and has a dianosis of Classic Autism. He doesn’t sleep until he wears himself ragged… he is up until 4am most nights. He can speak but only in 1 to 2 word phrases. He uses eye contact now but didn’t before. I know what’s its like to go to bed feeling so lost about whether I’m raising my son correctly or if I’m the one who is guilty of his Autism. To be a parent of an Autistic child is very different then from other parents. Unless you have an Autistic relative, friend or child it is very hard to understand where as a parent we are coming from. However, I also can respect that Autistic people responded negatively toward the video…. if they are watching it and see it from the child perspective instead of the parent perspective I can understand where it may seem demeaning. However, Autism Speaks asked for all of us who submitted our footage to sign a contract that it was owned by Autism Speaks once received…. so Autism Speaks put the video back on your website!!! I raised money for your organization for the Walk Now for Autism Walk and I took the time and effort to film my family for this video. I’m very saddened that there are so many negative responses toward it. Mr. Mann you are a beautiful poet and I think you did an outstanding job
Comment by Mike | October 1st, 2009
Amy,
did you read my blog before replying? the film is still up on the website and the Autism Speaks You Tube channel.
Also those of us who are either autistic or have raised an autistic child, and sometimes both, are not impressed by the line “Unless you have an Autistic relative, friend or child it is very hard to understand where as a parent we are coming from.” Many of us have been there and moved on.
And if autistics find it demeaning shouldn’t that be enough to prmpt parents to rethink their position? We are supposed to be the ones with a theory of mind yet the autistics are supposed to accommodate to our feelings while we ignore theirs.
Comment by Mike | October 1st, 2009
Wrong Jonathon,
have you anything substantive to contribute?
Comment by jonathan | October 1st, 2009
Yes, I do, I have a blog, autism’s gadfly in which I take on a lot of the mythology proposed by neurodiversitites and members of the autism hub such as yourself.
Very few people are willing to do that lest they incur the hateful wrath of and plethora of abuse and insults that hub members and neurodiversity proponents dish out. I don’t let them shut me up the way autism speaks and other nebbishes do.
I believe my contributions to the blogosphere are very substantive contrary to your implying that they are not.
Comment by VAB | October 1st, 2009
Very well said. I think you have clearly set forth what is going on. A problem is that, unless AS get some involvement from autistics, they will never really develop that third perspective but who would want to work with them when their attitude towards autistics is so clearly negative. That means that it may be impossible to reform AS.
Comment by Anne | October 1st, 2009
Amy, my son is 23-1/2 years old. I do know what it’s like to lose sleep wondering if I, as a parent, am making the right decisions and doing the right things for my child. I also know what the effects of prejudice and misunderstanding do to kids on the spectrum. If you think it’s challenging to have an autistic preschooler (which it is), wait until you see what it’s like when he goes out into the world. I think then maybe you’ll have a better understanding of where people who object to this video are coming from.
Comment by Dedj | October 1st, 2009
Jonathon is lucky if he attracts a handful of commentators a month, many of whom are in his circle of ‘friends’. Compared this to Mike who attracts typically attracts similar numbers despite posting a lot less.
There is very little evidence that he could present that indicates his contributions are ’substantive’.
Indeed, his laughably incompetant misrepresentation of the social model in comment 4 is pretty much par for the course for him.
As long as he keeps misattributing arguements to the entire movement on the basis of what a minority of people have said to him personally - mostly in reaction to his actual behaviour, and something he has been pulled up for time and time again - his arguements will be treated as the illogical self-referential ‘ooo you are all so mean to me’ rants that they clearly are.
Comment by Dedj | October 1st, 2009
Sorry about the spelling on that last post, was doing something else at the same time.
But anyway. This whole thing is curious.
First, what buisness is it of the science officer to respond to a email with information that is clearly the buisness of the press or PR officer to announce?
Second, why does she mention that it is not ‘representative’ of the attitude of AS when the main complaint is that AS showcased it in the first place?
Third, why does she keep mentioning that it was ‘very personal’, when the stated purpose of canvassing and collating the video clips were so that the could be combined and showcased at a major event?
Fourth, why does she keep making personal guarantees regarding her future actions, when the concern was about what it represents for AS as a whole?
Fifth, were is the press release announcing the removal of the video? Why were we told (by someone who does not hold relevant office) that it was removed, only to find that it hadn’t been?
A suspicious person would assume that she is merely trying to distance herself from the video.
Comment by Mike | October 1st, 2009
Jonathon
sorry if my short reply created any misunderstanding. To expand, do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion here and now about the Autism Speaks video?
I also welcome the chance to address any examples of inconsistency in my own thinking and writing. But I will not respond to attempts to exploit my words to support your erroneous beliefs about Neurodiversity.
Comment by Joseph | October 1st, 2009
I don’t get how someone who is a fairly well known researcher like Geri Dawson would associate herself with Autism Speaks, an increasingly anti-science organization. Looks like career suicide in my view. Not only that, now she’s being sent to do damage control related to the video debacle.
Comment by RAJ | October 2nd, 2009
Autism Speaks has done more for autism awareness than any other group in the US and the world as opposed to the NAS in England which appears to have embraced the entire neurodiversity quackery agenda and whose agenda simply trivializes a profoundly handicapping developmental disorder.
The anti-science agenda comes from the NAS and self-advocates who claim there is nothing wrong with autistic people, they are just wired differently, yet they demand special rights.
The neurodiversity crowd accepts Baron-Cohen’s and Lorna Wings concept of autism as a personality disorder and self diagnosed autistics actually meet diagnostic criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder rather than autism.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/schizoid-personality-disorder/DS00865
It is interesting that the prevelance of schizoid personality disorder has virtually disappeared as the prevelance of Asperger Syndrome has increased.
It is one of the leading causes of the ‘Autism Epidemic’ which has been described as ‘Diagnostic substitution’ but in reality is misdiagnosis as is the diagnostic substitution in mental retardation and childhhood language disorders which also contributes to the misdiagnosis of auitsm.
Kanner himself has described an earlier period where the misdiagnosis of autism led to a worldwide apparent epidemic of autism:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/library_kanner_1965.html
“Moreover, it became a habit to dilute the original concept of infantile autism by diagnosing it in many disparate conditions which show one or another isolated symptom found as a part feature of the overall syndrome. Almost overnight, the country seemed to be populated by a multitude of autistic children, and somehow this trend became noticeable overseas as well”.
I do agree with the complaint about autism groups being unrepresented by autistic people in advocacy groups and at scientific meetings. Howver, I would include a representative 25 yeard old man, unable to speak, still in diapers to sit between Lorna Wing and Simon Baron-Cohen while pounding his head on the table in every NAS sponsered meeting or scientific conference where they promulgate their concept of autism as a personality disorder.
Comment by jonathan | October 2nd, 2009
The one perspective that is not represented within Autism Speaks is that proposed by autistic self advocates, namely that the most disabling aspects of autism are social in origin.
These are your words in the post, Mike. I know you are not an autistic self-advocate, but somehow I get the idea that since you are stating this stuff and you seem to imply autism speaks should be presenting this as a perspective that you might believe this yourself. Therefore one might come to the conclusion that you believe that not being able to speak, having self-injurious behaviors, having meltdowns, making excessive mistakes on jobs and getting fired as I did are social in origin. I am not sure what you believe, but from reading ND things over the years there seems little question they believe it.
As far as the video is concerned, I am partly on your side. Though I believe tough messages are necessary to show what a horrific disability autism is and how much money is needed to find a cure at some point in time or if not a cure some way to help medically, I do believe this particular video was a bit over the top. I also think autism speaks handled the damage control badly and Geri Dawson has very little credibility in my eyes. This goes for autism speaks also.
Jon Shestack who is on the board of autism speaks and the founder of CAN, autism speaks’ predecessor, recently left a comment about the video and about how he feels about neurodiversity’s small mindedness in their attitude about him wishing to work to give his son a shot at a better life. You and other readers of your blog might like to read it. I am not saying this to give a plug to my blog, just that perhaps others could see the point of view by this man who has been constantly villified for years, particularly before Autism speaks was founded.
Dedj: I suggest you actually try to refute my arguments on their merits or lack of merits rather than claiming I have no substance based on the traffic I get to my blog or the number of commenters I get in proportion to posts and other irrelevant criteria. It certainly makes it look like you can’t truly refute anything I say.
Comment by Dedj | October 2nd, 2009
Jonathon. It is not up to me to ‘refute’ a thing. As the person making those broad sweeping unreferenced and unsupported allegations you so love to make, it is up to you to support them. You continously fail to do this, even in cases where you are directly asked, and even in cases where you have shown evidence of having read the original material.
The last time I directly asked you to substantiate a specific claim, you and Harold combined managed to kinda-sorta-allude to 4 (unreferenced) pieces of ‘evidence’, all 4 of which turned out to be completely and clearly different from what you claimed.
Each and every single arguement I have seen you in has resulted in you being totally and absolutely schooled by your opponent. I have even replied to some of your ‘arguements’ directly, as I did with your illogical craptrap about Mottron over at Kim Wombles* site. You have thus far failed to respond in any substantive way.
Sorry Jonathon, but it doesn’t look very good for you to assert that I ‘can’t refute’ what you write when I, and most people who tackle you, already have a 100% record of doing so.
You’ve just demonstrated that you’re not very good at this AND you don’t pay attention.
Stop wasting everyones time. Certianly don’t bother to reply to me if you can’t come up with anything better than ‘I’m right until you prove me wrong’.
*who is yet another person that is pretty much calling you out on every mistake you make over there. Half her replies to you consist of having to correct you over things you’ve been told before again and again. This is not unusual.
Comment by jonathan | October 2nd, 2009
Well, have no idea what you are talking about “dedj” At least i sign my real name to my posts.
Everything I said about Mottron, the hypocrisy of their group, the lack of scientific evidence that they claim supporrt their findings in the Souleries study was spot on and you did not accurately refute a thing.
Other than that I don’t know what you are talking about, I don’t know what I said and Harold said that you corrected, you should be more specific.
I don’t understand at all what your last paragraph means and the rest of your post is really a mass of confusion.
You certainly don’t have a 100% record of refuting anything I say, that is just your opinion.
I invite people to comment on my blog and correct me on anything I say that is wrong. I invite you to do so or anyone else. If I make a mistake or am wrong I correct the record.
According to your convoluted logic the age of autism blog must be filled with substance because they get far more traffic and comments than mike’s blog.
Comment by Mike | October 2nd, 2009
Nearly every point in RAJ’s comment is either wrong or asserted without supporting evidence.
Autism Speaks has done more for autism awareness than any other group in the US and the world as opposed to the NAS in England which appears to have embraced the entire neurodiversity quackery agenda and whose agenda simply trivializes a profoundly handicapping developmental disorder.
The NAS tries to serve the whole spectrum. Unlike Autism Speaks we do not pretend that autism is an epidemic or global health crisis and acknowledge that Aspergers and other expressions of high functioning autism are the real reason behind the growth in numbers. Our current campaign strategy tries to maintain a balance between raising their needs and ensuring that high quality lifetime provision is maintained for more severely disabled autistics.
The anti-science agenda comes from the NAS and self-advocates who claim there is nothing wrong with autistic people, they are just wired differently, yet they demand special rights.
Wrong. The NAS was instrumental in setting up, and is currently helping to finance, Research Autism, which seeks to evaluate the evidence base for autism interventions and sponsor research were necessary.
The neurodiversity crowd accepts Baron-Cohen’s and Lorna Wings concept of autism as a personality disorder and self diagnosed autistics actually meet diagnostic criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder rather than autism. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/schizoid-personality-disorder/DS00865
Evidence? When have SB-C, Wing or the NAS ever stated that autism or Aspergers are personality disorders?
I also think that you will find that many in the “neurodiversity crowd” do not accept SB-C’s ideas regarding mindblindness and empathy or his testosterone theories. Others do of course. Neurodiversity folk are diverse. Geddit?
It is interesting that the prevelance of schizoid personality disorder has virtually disappeared as the prevelance of Asperger Syndrome has increased.
Evidence? Prevalence of SPD prior to DSM IV would do. Plus current prevalence rates for Aspergers and SPD. And if it is the case, do you agree with Sula Wolff that for children she previously diagnosed with SPD, “The diagnoses we would now consider more appropriate for these children are mild Asperger or schizotypal personality disorder.”?
It is one of the leading causes of the ‘Autism Epidemic’ which has been described as ‘Diagnostic substitution’ but in reality is misdiagnosis as is the diagnostic substitution in mental retardation and childhhood language disorders which also contributes to the misdiagnosis of auitsm.
I think you will find that broadening the criteria and the increase in co-morbid diagnosis is more important than simple diagnostic substitution. And as I wrote earlier, it is Autism Speaks that is spreading misinformation about an autism epidemic.
Kanner himself has described an earlier period where the misdiagnosis of autism led to a worldwide apparent epidemic of autism:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/library_kanner_1965.html
“Moreover, it became a habit to dilute the original concept of infantile autism by diagnosing it in many disparate conditions which show one or another isolated symptom found as a part feature of the overall syndrome. Almost overnight, the country seemed to be populated by a multitude of autistic children, and somehow this trend became noticeable overseas as well”.
Kanner was writing about a totally different situation in which the psychodynamic school of psychiatry was applying the autism label indiscriminately in order to provide therapy for “refrigerator mothers,” who were blamed for all manner of childhood ills. I think this passage from the article you quote is particularly instructive as to Kanner’s position.
While the majority of the Europeans were satisfied with a sharp delineation of infantile autism as an illness sui generis, there was a tendency in this country to view it as a developmental anomaly ascribed exclusively to maternal emotional determinants. Moreover, it became a habit to dilute the original concept of infantile autism by diagnosing it in many disparate conditions which show one or another isolated symptom found as a part feature of the overall syndrome. Almost overnight, the country seemed to be populated by a multitude of autistic children, and somehow this trend became noticeable overseas as well. Mentally defective children who displayed bizarre behavior were promptly labeled autistic and, in accordance with preconceived notions, both parents were urged to undergo protracted psychotherapy in addition to treatment directed toward the defective child’s own supposedly underlying emotional problem.
I do agree with the complaint about autism groups being unrepresented by autistic people in advocacy groups and at scientific meetings. Howver, I would include a representative 25 yeard old man, unable to speak, still in diapers to sit between Lorna Wing and Simon Baron-Cohen while pounding his head on the table in every NAS sponsered meeting or scientific conference where they promulgate their concept of autism as a personality disorder.
You make a valid point about severe autism, despite the hyperbole and your insistence, against all the evidence, on misrepresenting the NAS position on autism. You may be gratified to know that next week I shall be moderating a discussion within the structures of the NAS to explore how we can best engage with and elicit the views of severely autistic people. Unlike Autism Speaks we do not presume to speak for them and are exploring ways to enable them to self advoicate like their more able fellows on the autistic spectrum.
Comment by Stephanie | October 3rd, 2009
I think the title of this post is a bit misleading. This isn’t confusion at all. Their behavior is based on poor public relations decisions, the root of which is probably (but I’m not familiar with their inside culture enough to say anything more than “probably”) based on poor ethics versus strict adherence to their negative view of autism. The comments and the rest of the point seem to reflect that understanding.
You did an excellent job at breaking down their poor attempt at damage control. As someone with PR training, I have to say they either need to change their core views to prevent this type of damage or just take the hit. The way they’re handling this indicates that not only are their core views and the efforts derived from them offensive, but their “business” ethics are below par.
Comment by Mike | October 3rd, 2009
Stephanie,
I think you are right. There is a contradiction rather than confusion at the heart of Autism Speaks which I address in my post Autism Speaks - will it ever speak for us? This was written before Alison Singer felt obliged to quit over the vaccine issue. She left to form the Autism Science Foundation and took Eric London with her.
Regarding the PR disaster. They knew it was coming. The poem was first aired when the Wrights took Billy Mann to London in May. He read it out at a reception at 10 Downing Street before an assemblage of the great and the good of the UK autism world including Simon Baron-Cohen and Mark Lever, CEO of the National Autistic Society. A guest at the reception has told me that it caused visible consternation amongst the guests and Autism Speaks was left in no doubt that it was offensive. Yet they went ahead with the video anyway. Autism Speaks but it does not listen.
Comment by Dedj | October 3rd, 2009
First, the fact that I don’t sign my real name to posts is irrelevant and has hereby been called out as the weak attempt at a ad hominem it so obviously is.
Second, both I and Kim have succesfully refuted your illogical demand that people who are ND ‘must’ criticise Mottron. Mottron dealt with this himself. You have not refuted anything he has said about this. Yes you have posted, no you have not ‘refuted’.
Kim Wombles has repeatedly corrected you in regards to your misrepresentations of her views and arguements. Her corrections of you, and the evidence supporting her, is freely available on her website.
People do have a 100% record of refuting you. That you do not realise this despite being made aware of it several times by several people is exactly the reason why you are considered a running joke all over the hub. Nothing you have done indicates that this is not a fair and accurate depiction.
I’m not aware of any place where you have admitted a mistake, much less corrected it. I find the idea that you would admit error obsurd, given your demonstrated level of stubborness in virtually every discusssion I have seen you in.
“According to your convoluted logic the age of autism blog must be filled with substance because they get far more traffic and comments than mike’s blog.”
The only person convuluting logic here is you. Your example is weak as AoA is a daily newspaper - not a blog which is what you were intially talking about- it has several contributors, including those invited from larger newsites, with several posts daily, and is affliated with several larger sites. It’s not uncommon to see posts there with 0 replies. Many have 10 or less. 1 in 10 posts get over 40, often due to people piling on someone who is posting contrary evidence.
None of this has anything to do with pointing out the lack of conventional evidence to your assertion that your contributions are ’substantive’.
Nice try though. Shame for you it was predictable in both it’s lack of logical consitancy and as a demonstration that you haven’t understood what was said to you.
I find replying to you a mentally painful experience. It takes so long to work out what the hell you’re talking about, and so long to correct you that it’s much, much easier to just ignore you.
I have no idea how Clay and others can stand to deal with you on a regular basis. Your invitation to post on your website is hereby respectfully declined.
I for one would like this thread to get back on track. You assert that Mike has declared autism symptoms to be social in origin. He has not done so. He has stated a belief that the disabling of people with autism is social. These two beliefs are not equivilant and Mike has pulled you up for this already. If you truly believe that this is a core ND belief, then your understanding is well and truly off. This has been pointed out to you before. You have consistantly failed to address any of the concerns people have with your comprehension.
You have nothing substantive left to add. I suggest you finish here.
Comment by Mike | October 3rd, 2009
Dedj
my policy is to ignore all comments about what I might believe or seem to imply. I think my writing is sufficiently clear that anyone who either misunderstands everything I write or tries to twist it to serve their agenda is not worth replying to. Mitchell is now on moderation. If he has a worthwhile comment to make I will publish it.
Comment by Laurentius Rex | October 3rd, 2009
Mike you were (are) a marxist right?
You would know to leave idiots like RAJ alone because the contradictions they contain sew the seeds of there own destruction.
Oh well we shall see, Autism Speaks certainly are self destructing at a rate in excess of that one would expect.
My business is not really in challenging the commentators it is in challenging the originators of the theries.
Jonathon is a self declared nobody, he is the one who makes himself thus, not the NAS not the illuminati, not the Freemasons, nor even Dan Brown.
Been around long enough to see a lot of changes, and you don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows
Comment by Mike | October 3rd, 2009
hi Larry
just setting the record straight. I would hate for RAJ to sow the seeds of anyone else’s destruction.
A weatherman once missed a hurricane as I recall.
Comment by Stephanie | October 4th, 2009
“A guest at the reception has told me that it caused visible consternation amongst the guests and Autism Speaks was left in no doubt that it was offensive. Yet they went ahead with the video anyway.”
Preventing this kind of negative publicity is precisely the point of “test marketing” an idea before you present it to a wider audience. Though, I have watched it and have gauged others’ reactions, and a few fence-sitters haven’t really understood what the big deal is, which is unfortunate. If you look at it strictly from a parent’s (friend’s, family member’s) perspective without thinking about what it implies, it’s not so bad. But the whole point of propaganda is telling people what to think versus enabling them to think on their own.
Comment by Dedj | October 7th, 2009
I am deeply sorry that JM is under moderation, although it’s not a surprise.
I would have loved to have been amused at his attempts to justify accusing me of postulating a simplistic linear relationship between comments and content, then labelling it ‘convoluted’ - a term which carries the opposite meaning, and which isn’t actually an intrinsically negative quality.
It seems even his attempts at insults are logically self-contradictory.