Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Dedj C
Recent Activity
-
Dedj commented on the article |Indeed Amanda, I recently got accused of being "judgemental" merely because I reported that some parents of autistic children can contribute to their child's behaviour.
Such an idea is of absolutely no contention in mainstream education or paediatrics, yet make the child an autistic child and suddenly all negative behaviour 'must' derive from the child's autism, rather than from the stress and anxiety of whatever situation the child has been placed in.
Parents of disabled children (and adults) often have it much harder than the rest of us (potentially including those of us with the actual condition in question), however the idea that parents can be abusive or neglectful of their disabled children is of no contention in mainstream disability services (it is, after all, why things like PoVC and PoVA and their US versions exist).
Parents of disabled children are often wrongly blamed for thier childs behaviour, often by people with little understanding. However, we must always be aware that behaviour by parents is still behaviour and as such has it's own reasons for existing.
People should recognise that those reasons are not always very appropriate, logical, reasonable or well advised , even if they're not deliberately malicious.
Some people just don't seem to like the idea that having an disabled child doesn't excuse or even explain the behaviour of parents, it merely provides context.
-
Dedj commented on the article |"How you can conclude that some parents' so-called lack of knowledge of autism makes it "clear they were a major contributing factor to their childs adversive and challenging behaviour" is beyond me."
Because I've personally witnessed it in clinical practice, it's in the professional literature, it's a known factor in challenging behaviour and it's in basic interactional and transactional psychlogical theory. It's also reported in autism literature. Asking your local autism services if they've ever heard of such a thing may have helped you here, although admittedly they're unlikley to want to hand out such information freely.
Regarding Offit. The basic opposition to Offit is that he is basically a vaccine industry insider. He is qualified, successful and very experienced. To dismiss his opinions because of the [i]potential[/i] for bias is absurd, especially given that Healy's peers can and have promoted other 'vaccine industry insiders' into positions of trust and authourity. Also the 10,000 vaccines is a myth, as you would have known had you read the original paper.
Regarding Healy. Healy can comment if she wants. I'm not sure where you got the idea that she couldn't. You will provide a quote of me saying so.
I've even stated that she was very good in her field, and was a major player in the reforms that went on in her time, especially those regarding women in research.
This is not a case of 'Dr Healy said this'. Her comments were made in response to numerous studies that have found no link and in response to a well reasoned report from a expert IOM committee packed with relevant and current experts and advisors.
To quote Dr Healy as an leading and relevant authourity, without also quoting the numerous more recent and more relevant authourities that she is implicitly disagreeing with is tantamount to lying by omission. It is at best an insultingly obvious attempt at cherry-picking sources.
You basically see her as a relevant and current authourity because she agrees with you.
Regarding parental report. No doubt some parents believe they have witnessed their child getting autism. However the parental reports I've seen vary greatly both in terms of timeframe (anything from seconds to months) to effects (instant versus gradual) from effect (fever then loss of skills to 'switching off like a light'). It's nowhere near as homogenous as you claim.
Also VAERS reports are interesting, but aren't really 'historical evidence' (as you use the term) for as they are effectively just recording claimed injurires. You don't get to use the fact that you believe your arguement to be true as the evidence that it is.
So far 3 major commentators here have failed to provide sufficient reasons for why Healy should be regarded as anything other than a former director who happens to have taken and interest in this subject.
I even broke it down into specific questions yet they still failed.
If vaccines have caused the autism 'epidemic', I'll be amazed, but unvalidated, unreferenced, vague calls to put on some sort of ill-defined 'study' simply aren't good enough. We need solid lit reviews, exploration of confounders, potential for bias, exploration of ethics, recruitment and all that usually goes in a study proposal. 'Put on a study' doesn't cut it an we all know it.
Let's stop pretending it does.
I'm sorry, but I have better things to do than listen to cookie-cutter name-dropping.
Consider this my final post in this thread.
-
Dedj commented on the article |
Indeed, a semi-retired cardiologist who was last employed in her acclaimed position of authority 15 years ago, has, in fact, no claim to be an expert authority on a field of study that she has:
No relevant qualifications in, beyond the minimum M.D. (you will provide these if there are more)
No relevant experience in (you will provide a list of relevant positions if there ever were any)
No relevant acclaim or publications in (you will provide evidence of her previous work in vaccinology or vaccine related epidemiology, and paediatric expertise)
She did good work during her time at NIH. but please wake up and realise that lapsed authority from nearly two decades ago does not equal current and up to date scientific authority.
Make your case for why Dr Healy should be listened to, above and beyond the numerous vaccinologists and epidemiologists whose work she dismisses.
"She used to hold a high level non-clinical post" doesn't cut it, as any competently and relevantly educated and aware person would realise instantaneously.
And please, don't insult yourself by quoting whale.to. Your reference has him declaring conflicts of interest he didn't even have, but could have had. Hardly a damning accusation.
Answer this: Where does her relevant, current and validated authority in this come from?
And: why, if she is in fact a relevant authority, is there no reasonable sign of any recognition of her by the vaccine skeptic camp, until after she started making vaccine skeptic friendly comments?
Why is her entire authority based on a directive posistion held years ago, and not any recent research, qualifications, experience or training.
If she was a relevant authority, you would not have to have fallen back on a previous job that she held, but would have been able to refer directly to her relevant experience. Thats how these things work.
If the 'put on a study' camp was actually engaging in science, you would have been more than capable of answering the points of my post, and that of ken and chris. Your utter failure to do anything other than a feeble attempt at misdirection has been taken as a inability to provide coherent cogent answers.
Do better next time, you don't get free ride for being a parent.
-
Dedj commented on the article |
Christopher appears to have it more or less bang on as far as I can tell. I've only had minimal clinical experience working in autism services, yet I have definetly witnessed otherwise intelligent and educated parents make absolute howlers in regards to their autistic children and/or basic knowledge of autism, up to and including the point where it's clear they were a major contributing factor to their childs adversive and challenging behaviour.
That's not to say parents are dumb and professionals are perfect - after all it's possible to be both- but I find it hard to take the viewpoint of a minority of almost exclusively american parents when it lies in direct contradiction (or at best, is not supported by) to the majority of the mainstream body of expertly and scientifically derived knowledge.
The curious thing is that the majority, if not very near to the exclusive majority, of the professional level discussion about whether or not we can even 'put on a study' appears to be coming from people who are NOT in the 'put on a study' camp - the total and complete opposite of how science usually works. Sure, there are many people, such as some of the regulars here, who are in the 'put on a study' camp, but apart from simplistic assertions that it can 'somehow' be done, and irrelevant name-dropping, there is actually very little real science, real arguements or even any real attempts to address any of the multitude of very real concerns that have been reffered to by Christopher and Ken.
I've stated before that I find the promotion of the personal opinions of irrelevant authourities like Healy above and beyond the professional opinion of relevantly qualified and experienced people like Offitt and others to be a situation that is both illogical, unsupported and clearly political and not scientific. Added to the apparent absence of any serious and competant scientific discussion originating from the 'put on a study' camp, the whole situation becomes farcical.
The scientific thing to do would be to with-hold support from Healy et al. until they can actually be clear on what it is they actually expect to be done. Shockinly bad lit-reviews, and vague calls to 'Put on a study' just doesn't cut it.
-
Dedj commented on the article |If it doesn't apply to you then you are free to butt out.
"but I have not noticed anyone saying that all NDs are against treatment."
If you are ignorant of the claim then that's fine, it's not your fault. But you do need to be aware that it gets made, and has been heavily implied by at least one person in this thread, and elsewhere by at least one of the main participants here.
I don't sit here and type things for kicks you know. Please have the decency to attribute at least some knowledge and intelligence to me, as I do to you. It'll stop you misreading my posts.
-
Dedj commented on the article |
You must be talking about a different Dr Offit.
The main "vaccines = autism" arguement is that vaccines are provoking a immunologic reaction in children, which results in autism. Some parents even go so far as to claim that they can "see the autism" take effect on the clinic table.
This is not a long shot out of the field of standing for a paediatrician with a background in vaccines and immunology.
If he was the only person Dr Healy was disgreeing with, you just might possibly have a point. He is certainly not. Again, Healy is less relevantly qualified than the teams of people that have looked at this.
Repeating her qualifications in cardiology and posistions last held years ago does nothing to answer that challenge that you and others are selectively quoting her.
-
Dedj commented on the article |
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make in your reply. At no point did I say that it is of importance that some autism is not caused by vaccines. I was responding to Harolds conflation of the two seperate "vaccines caused the autism epidemic" and "vaccines can cause some autism" arguements.
Please stick to the point.
"I never heard of Dr. Paul Offit until a few years ago. "
You clearly misunderstood the point.
Dr Offit was a well established authourity in the relevant fields long before any of us here got into the subject. Whether you personally knew of him is irrelevant and was not the point that was being made. Dr Healy was known, but in her own field, with no known directly relevant qualifications or experience. Suddenly - with no extra training, qualifications or experience - she is being taken as a greater authourity than the people that she disagrees with, which includes people with equal or greater, current and relevant experience and credentials.
To promote her view as an authourity without also promoting their view as authourities is nothing short of selective omission.
-
Dedj commented on the article |
"Another snide divisive comment. You could have just said that ND's are not against treatment."
Why? That would not have been a fully accurate statement. There are enough high profile pro-ND bloggers, academics, researchers, therapists and service providers that finding pro-treatment pro-nd people is a relative cinch.
Like it or not, the "ND = anti-treatment" arguement is so easily disprovable that the only way to hold it is to be ignorant, incompetant, biased or a combination of all three.
Even one of the main authours of this blog is considered ND yet has blogged multiple times about her sons treatment.
There is no excuse to believe that "ND = anti-treatment". Deal with it.
-
Dedj commented on the article |
Sorry, I meant to say "several highly experienced, qualified and highly level pro-ND bloggers"
-
Dedj commented on the article |
Harold, I take time out from my day to go trough your arguements and provide counterpoints. Common decency would entail that you at least attempt to do the same.
If you have no answers then just say so, there is no need to try to blame me for your lack of answers.
You are on record as having attacked the knowledge base, motivation and skill level of several pro-ND bloggers on this website, for no other reason than that they have disagreed with you and called you out exactly as they have seen it.
I thank you for giving permission to dismiss your arguements, it saves having to waste time reading them.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits