Aspies For Freedom

I'm going to say.... no. No to the power of eleven.

It's true that biomedical intervention for autistics is a personal opinion that some think should be respected in a similar fashion as a religion. And they can continue to believe it - it doesn't mean anyone else has to believe it.

Besides which, who says that damaging religious beliefs have to be respected?

Biomed parents wish to push the "autism as tragedy" image, just like Autism Speaks does. Also, their methods for combating the things you've mentioned above is to advocate chelation - which isn't exactly the sort of thing we can work with them on.

For the icing on the cake, there is no chance that they would be in support of things that could help families affected by autism. They would be in favor of funding for chelation therapy, or other quackery.



Ironically, I was intending to write a similar post for an April Fools joke - announcing that Aspies for Freedom was merging with Generation Rescue in order to better combat Autism Speaks.

I decided against it, as I thought it may be in poor taste.

As such, it is quite disturbing that someone could be seriously considering such an alliance.

Isn't it just? I'm actually rather disappointed to see that somebody who has been quite a leading light on this forum would even entertain for a moment the idea that quackery should be respected.

I really don't think these people can be trusted.

But that is just so stupid! Chelation won't help the children develop language and anybody who believes so is seriously deluded or extremely gullible, or both!

I wonder what or who has got to you? I can't believe you'd seriously even suggest chelation might help autistic children develop language. I'm disappointed that you seem to be getting taken in by such quack theories. It's almost like believing that babies are found in cabbages in the back garden, only far more serious as chelation in the wrong hands is harmful.

It almost seems as if you're getting indoctrinated by someone and it is a worrying trend.

Okay, but we shouldn't align ourselves with people who believe the opposite to us = it makes us look stupid and that is something we just don't need!

Hm, perhaps I was wrong over msn, cosying up to the biomed lot, especially over chelation, smells to me of bad practise, the mercury theories have already been debunked, I don't think we can afford to compromise our position over this one, I think fair play to those people who want to try the likes of GF/CF diets, trying to teach kids how to read body language, teaching about social interactions and such, but allying ourselves with the promoters of invasive 'treatments', or forced 'treatments' opens the door for the rot to seep in here.

Once we start cooperating with that lot, its a short time, I think, until the fringes here start to believe it might be acceptable in certain circumstances etc, then all hell breaks loose.

I get the impression these are the parts of what I've said many have missed out.

I don't want to say anything negative specifically about parents who choose to believe in biomedical treatments in this thread, I hope you understand why.

Remember the prize I mention at the start of this thread, those are important issues that seem to be neglected.

Yes indeed. I don't believe in compromising our principles if they are correct and the biomed ones are based mostly on discredited "evidence" and theories. People who have spent huge amounts of money on treatments have a vested interest in saying they helped their child because otherwise they would look foolish for being taken in.

The only exceptions would be those who found that treatments such as chelation actively harmed their children and who wish to draw this fact to the attention of other parents so they don't do the same thing.

Erkolos, I know you mean well here, but please think hard about what would happen if we compromised and started to tell people that their belief in outdated theories is just fine and maybe we got it wrong after all.
It would undo years of hard work on the part of many people to demystify  autism. I just don't believe we can afford to do this.

By all means, we could refrain from calling individual parents stupid or misguided for using chelation etc. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at such "treatments" with a critical eye.

I think of the same things as Andrew_W thinks of with the mention of personal stories.

Personally I don't see trying to cooperate with biomed believing communities as compromising our views, I just see it as another strategy to engage in our common own goals.

Forgot to delete "own" in the last sentence after having added "common".

If their ideas are mistaken, we would need to be very careful in any alliance as we would not want to be seen to support outdated and incorrect theories.

I still agree with opposition to misinformation and lack of sceptic views represented 100% throttle.

Kevin Leitch does a great job.

What does he do?

Write a blog that is sceptic, if maybe also abit hostile, towards DAN!