Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Recent Activity
-
M commented on the article |"Autistic people can and do learn from each other, and often what is learned is deeply useful or comprehensible specifically because there is a more equitable basis for the information exchange."
I think that statement does not apply to young children with autism. I have two children, identical twins actually, who are both on the spectrum. Mostly what they have done since regressing into autism is completely ignore each other except when forced to interact by either us or their therapists.
Twins normally share a bond that is deeper than what is normally possible for two people - identical twins tend to have a stronger bond still.
Autism is strong enough to break that bond.
If you wanted to refine your statement to something like "two adults who happen to have a very high functioning form of autism can and do learn from each other" then you might be closer to the truth. -
M commented on the article |Now we are getting somewhere, you calling it what it is, a "hypothetical idea" instead of a "unfounded hypothesis". Since language is your field I assume you grasp the difference between those statements.
It is clearly hypothetical which implies unproven. But there is a difference between that and saying that it is "there's nothing specific to autism that calls for detoxification". You simply cannot know that.
You are correct in your statement if not in your meaning. I do have decent idea of what research has an has not been done in this area. So can point out the obvious holes in your reasoning.
But you do buy organic, don't you? So ask yourself why that is beneficial to do and why you believe it. Because it is equally based on a "lack of evidence" so by your own arguments should not bother. -
M commented on the article |
The point is very much if the cause is known. If the cause is known then you should be able to answer whether a given treatment is a proper one or not.
For the other disabilities that you mentioned there is a agreement as to what causes them and to a lesser extent what the mechanisms in the body involved are. And there are tests that can be used to establish that the condition exists.
None of this is true for autism.
I am sorry to hear that your son has issues but it does not have any any relevance to the point I was trying to make. However, since you brought it up, here is food for thought. Since your stated goal is to help him be the best he can be, if it were possible to help him by some treatment such as diet or helping him "detox" better - don't you think it would be worth it? -
M commented on the article |
Lets try this again:
Lack of evidence != Unfounded Hypothesis
Lack of evidence != Does not work
Lack of evidence = Unknown
You cannot say that because there is a lack of evidence the treatment does not work, cannot work, has no basis to think it should work, or otherwise imply that it is known not to work.
Well, obviously you can because you do in your writings on a regular basis.
I noticed that you did not list any research that excludes the body's detox pathways from autism, so I am going to assume that you do not know of any.
Detoxification is something that is arising as people are becoming aware of the chemicals in the world around them and thinking, do I really want that in me?
By your logic the entire organic food movement would also be based on a "lack of evidence" because it really comes down to the same thing - removing chemicals from the food we eat.
So, do you buy organic? -
M commented on the article |
@ Collen Tomko - The three conditions you mentioned have known causes, genetic causes.
Autism does not have a known cause, genetic or otherwise.
If you look at the basis of the assumption that autism is genetic (twin studies) you find the the main argument is flawed. Mainly the simple fact that while identical twins only both have autism 60-90% of the time and it is possible for one twin to be more severe than the other. And the fact that fraternal twins are more likely than other siblings to have autism. -
M commented on the article |
It doesn't really matter why people decide to try the treatments, if doesn't invalidate the argument that lack of evidence is lack of evidence and not proof of the opposing argument.
And calling them "unfounded hypothesis" is implying that the answer to the question is known - which it is not.
I also was not talking about chelation specifically nor was I talking about using it to treat heart disease. Nice attempt to change the subject.
If you have any research that demonstrates that the body's detoxification pathways are not involved in autism, please share it. Otherwise it appears that you are the one with the "unfounded" theory. -
M commented on the article |
So, how exactly go you go form "unproven as effective" to "there's something poisonous about being autistic" to "When, in reality, there's nothing specific to autism that calls for detoxification".
Your first statement correctly points out the the "treatments" are unproven - because the lack the research behind then to prove that they work. But then you jump to the conclusion that since there is a lack of studies the treatments aren't necessary.
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence, not evidence for the other argument. So, "in reality", the only statement you can make is it is unknown whether these treatments help. -
M commented on the article |As one of those parents who "criticize adults on the spectrum as having nothing in common with their kids and nothing to teach" let me ask you, what exactly do you think you can teach me about children whom you have never met and know nothing about?
The only thing that you have in common is a diagnosis of autism. What else can you tell me about being a four year old twin?
Do you have any of the symptoms of autism in common with them? Do you have the same sensory issues? Does your autism even have the same cause?
The letter that you linked to while being a nice reminder that every child is special and unique in their own way does nothing to address the challenges that parents are facing on a daily basis. It does not provide any useful information that you can you to help your child. Love your child, yes, of course, if we didn't we would not be trying so hard to help them.
It is not about being "normal" or "differently wired" - it is about teaching your children the skills that they need and providing them everything possible to be the best they can be. -
M commented on the article |Have you ever tried to communicate with a 18 month old with autism who doesn't respond to sound and will not look at you? And by not responding to sound I mean to no response to any sound up to and including not being startled by loud, sudden sounds. Most people cannot suppress the startle reflect.
You also don't sound like you have seen the frustration on your child's face as they attempt to communicate what they want but don't have the ability to use words, don't understand the concept of pointing, don't have a PEC, and don't know the sign for what they want.
All of this makes it a little hard to communicate. While it is true that communication is a two way street if one of the people has all of the channels blocked it isn't it is something that they can do.
So, there is a part missing from your process flow diagram - there is a stage between the channel and the encoding/decoding process. In the case of speech it would normally be the ears of the receiving person and the pathways into the brain that enable the sound to be encoded/decoded into a form that can be processed. And on the opposing side there is a transmitter that is responsible for sending the communication.
So if the receivers or the decoding process is broken, then understanding standard communication doesn't happen. And by the same token, if the transmitters don't work then communication is never sent.
Or to put it simply, some people with autism cannot communicate effectively.
The answer is to attempt to correct the issues with the process and the good news is that communication can be learned. My children, who are now four, are starting to understand speech and have a limited ability to talk and use sign language and PECS. It has been a long road to teach them enough to get this far (but very definitely worth it).
So your romantic notions of communication being "all parties in the relationship are responsible for keeping the communication flowing" simply do not hold water when considering very young children with autism and ignore the realities of the situation.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits