Aspies For Freedom

I was shown this link, I hadnt seen it before, does anyone think its worth complaining to this guy about his ignorant attitude, or is he the type to enjoy trolling and would just love the attention, and is best ignored?

Extracts from this piece he wrote-

Attack Of The "Aspies"

I found out that "aspies," or people diagnosed with so-called Asperger's Disorder, are anything but shy when they reply to somebody calling into question their new found social identity. Their new found social identity being the sick role they've acquired with an Asperger's diagnosis. I've received angry comments at my blog site and via e-mail for my posting of a New York Times article and a brief commentary by myself with it at my blogsite. The point of my commentary was to argue that Asperger's is another medically fraudulent diagnosis and the promotion of this diagnosis is doing more to foment cult-like behavior among the people who embrace it than advancing medical science. I also pointed out that all of this is leading to future reimbursements for insurance and disability payments for "aspies," even though they really aren't sick on the basis of impaired social functioning.

Every comment I've received has buttressed my belief that this is just another psychiatry inspired cult. One angry comment on my blog accused me of having beliefs similar to people who lynch others they disagree, which is complete nonsense. In an e-mail reply from this person he told me had been transformed by his diagnosis, kind of like the way a person who becomes a born again Christian feels after they've converted. Another angry letter from a man here in Washington state told me that his mind can go to places that mine can only dream of. I replied that he should go to places with his mind I can only dream of, wherever the hell that may be, but don't tell me it's because you're sick and you might need insurance and/or disability coverage for it.

I want to take time here to reply to the charge that my comments on Asperber's is uninformed and that I don't have the "qualifications" to call this diagnosis a fraud. One comment on my blogsite posed a question about whether I believe there is such a thing as disease. Well, of course there is such a thing as disease, but we're not talking about a disease when we speak of Asperber's. I don't go to a real doctor's office and tell him I'm having trouble finding a girlfriend and holding down a job, a couple problems a couple "aspies" profiled in the NY Times feature have, and walk with a diagnosis for lower back pain caused by a previous spinal injury (Which is something I really have) or cancer. But I can walk away from a psychiatrist's office with a diagnosis for Asperger's "Disorder" if I tell him this.

The reactions I got from some "aspies" out there suggests I had offended the social identity of these people. In fact, when I replied to one of them and told him he's a person, not and "aspie," he replied that he is a person AND an "aspie." On the surface it would not appear that I'm offending somebody's social identity by suggesting that their choice to not interact much, if at all, socially, and it is a choice, is not a disease that can be treated by medical doctors. However, for many of the people who have acquired the "aspie" diagnosis, the diagnosis and the sick role it entails is their social identity. This is the world we live in, where people who are not sick adamantly insist they are, and we can thank the DSM and the marketing of it for this. In the end, this "aspie" marketing campaign will eventually lead to the diagnosis getting partial or full insurance coverage and individual "aspies" qualifying for disability benefits when most of them are clearly able bodied people with problems of relating to others socially. It's a new diagnosis on the block having just been listed in the current edition of the DSM, first published in 1994, but it appears to be well on its way to becoming a gravy train as big as ADHD or any other fraud cooked up by psychiatry over the years.

There is my reply to the attack of the aspies on my criticism of the NY Times feature. Now I would suggest that any other ill-informed dingbats out there calling themselves "aspies" have their facts straight before they start accusing me of being misinformed and wrong-headed about this latest psychiatric fraud.

click here for full article

If this guy would really care to find out the truth, he would have done a little research before he put out this ridiculous article. I think he just wants to cause trouble and make people angry, because he enjoys the attention.

My opinion is that he isn't worth bothering with.

Ursula

Well, imo he does make one or two valid points, but all of that is wrapped up in a seething rage.

I'm not particularly fond of the use of the words "disease" or "disorder" to describe the way I am, even the word "Syndrome" has a light negative connotation.

Who I am is not the result of a disease or a disorder, or a syndrome.  Who I am is simply different.  I do suspect that there is a slight difference in brain structure compared to normal people, and there's probably enough reputable research to at least make a solid hypothesis to that effect.  He does show some ignorance about the importance of even the slightest differences in brain structure and chemistry - minor differences can have major effects.

This begs the question of whether I consider LFA's as well to not have a "disease" or "disorder".  In the traditional medical sense, no, I do not.  They are even more different from "normal" people than HFA's - if their brain structure deviates even further from normal than my own, then I can certainly see that even "LFA" is a poor term, and "further off from the norm" is a more accurate and descriptive way of putting it.  Furthermore, the further "off the norm", ie, the further away from the "proper/normal" design of the brain that a given brain is, the worse off it will be, with some structures mangled/altered so differently as to not being able to function as designed.

It might help to understand the above if you anthropomorphize nature or god (take your pick) experimenting on us: "how far can I bend and twist the human brain before it breaks?".

Reiterating above though, I don't have a disease.  I don't have a disorder.  I even dislike using the term "Syndrome" to describe myself.  I am simply very different from most other people.  (The tendency of people to ostracize those are different is acknowledged, but out of the scope of this particular line of thinking for me this morning.)

Yes, in many respects we need to get our own house in order, and getting the DSVM method scrapped would be a good start; they don't do a direct test of whether the victim is even autisitic (such a test could easily developed if the consistent results of the AQ and C&M tests are anything to go by, and the first is experimental, and the second is a mickey mouse version of a test for something completely diferent!). Once one starts asking "does this guy think like I do?" it soon becomes clear that many, if not most of those with such a diagnosis, are clearly NTs with "problems"!

While the situations remains so murky, it's hardly surprising that disputes and abuses will proliferate; in fact, I strongly suspect that this situation has been deliberately created by elements of the etablishment.

But the blogger? A waste of time as his mind is made up already!

Amy, this guy is expressing what the majority of the population think - it's very sad. I never tell people outside my family, who aren't aspie, I have AS. In fact, my family and ex-wife have the same beliefs, more or less; they think it's just some quacks' excuse to justify their existence.

Here we are again, Gwynfryn . If I accused you of fishing, I wonder what you'd say?

I think it's possible to think in a similar manner to someone, and yet disagree. Also, to confuse disagreement with two different ways of thinking, but that grounds been covered elsewhere by those more able than my humble self. As an observation, I can relate to your way of thinking as much as a certain other person you believe is not aspie. I think you're attaching too much weight to this very subjective measure; you're redefining Asperger's Syndrome to fit you.

here's what i wanted to post on the comments section on rick's site but it didn't work:

1st point - i personally am fighting the idea that autism/AS is a disease as it as part of who i am, in the same way as i am male. it is only viewed as a disease by some because of the intolerance towards odd autistic behaviours by some people

2nd point - there is no doubt at all autism is genetic, twin studies and analysis of traits found in familys have confirmed this

3rd point - aspies and other autistics do reproduce a lot more then people think

homosexuality used to be classed as a disease - would you label that a fraud  ?

bein autistic does have a large effect on someone's personality and therefore will affect an individual's social identity. getting a diagnosis can cause people to seek out other aspies (and there is a rapidly growing culture/community) which will re-inforce a kind of social identity based on their part in that community. The same process happens with homosexuals who come out after being in denial - they take on gay pride and aquire a new social identity by doing so

Well it's off-topic alan, so I suggest you check out my last(?) post on AI; it's not about diagreements but it is about the reasoning process, and anyone who reasons like an NT has the brain of an NT, and is therefore NT. As for "redefining", does anyone actually own the definition? As you've seen, Hans Aspergers papers can be "interpreted", to suite anyone's preferences (and the devil can quote scriptures to his purpose) and the UK diagnosticians have a distinctly different understanding to the DVSM, as they do of "autism". Even the DSVM puts AS on the autistic spectrum, but make no effort to test if a person is autisitic? What kind of science is that?

We don't need a label like AS to describe people who have obvious difficulties and a need for social assitance and medical intervention, but if we want recognition for the discrimination againts people like me who's only "visible" difference is our lack of instinctive use of non verbal communication, then a label of some kind is required. Should we invent a new one? Perhaps, now that Aspergers name has been so misappropriated, that would be best, but in the meantime, given he was the first to write extensively about this lack of "social skills", what better name for people like myself than "Aspergers Syndrome"?

Those on AI who clearly have no cerebral difference from those they are so keen to have us emulate, and thus no need for any such label, also lack any justification for associating themselves with the guy who did this research.

in my opinion,

The averege person is ignorant.

They wouldn't know know crap if it hit them in the face. One thing about being different to the "norm" is you realise how stupid people are.

Mabe if that person had it he'd think differently, but he doesn't, and therefore is ignorant to the condition. [/u]

Isnt calling someone sick, a synoniem about calling someone who is having a disease?

For example, in an english comedy, a girlfriend said to his boyfriend: 'you are really utterly a sicko.' because his boyfriend slept with a full preggo (a woman who is incubating a lifeform). Well it's not 'right' to do it, it's immoral etc. It's a taboo to do that. The pregnant woman is taboo-ised in a manner of speaking.

So that man is really sick? Having a disease? Some AS-people cross the bounderies of social acceptance (?) a lot of times. But, i think, they ACTUALLY have the right to be called a sicko, because they ARE genetically different (according to Gareth). It's a given fact right? You cant do something about it, you are it or not. 'Sicko' people, or character-wise unpleasant people, NT's or whatever, people expect them to 'change' their character by insulting them like that, i think. Children get hit and insulted a lot of times to correct there mistakes???? DO you think AS-people cant do that? WIll they be SICKO forever?

I cant follow my own arguments anymore...

It boils down to who defines mentally ill?

Using a rational definition would be something like "inability to behave consistently in a manner which is not life(anyone's) threatening". By this definition, the current US admin, for instance would be fairly described as mentaly ill, as they are chronically unable to avoid killing people!

I, on the other hand, engage in no behaviours which are threatening to neither myself, nor anyone else; on the contrary, I'm both a survivor type, and more than willing to live and let live (though experience shows that, once attacked, we have to push back or we'll remain underpriviliged and disenfranchised; those Aspies who sit on their butts tut-tuting at my current beligerence are their own worse enemies).

Look at the history of AS, and it really only revolved around the lack of capacity for non verbal communication (what use would the scouts and hunters of our ancestry have for this? They needed accurate communication at a distance, and so invented formal language; why then are we now seen as "at fault" because we have cast off a more primitive and less detailed method?) but the DSM (in particular, and most of the world has followed their lead) then relentlessly added on "co-morbidities" which may or may not have any link to autism, thereby driving us collectively into a the grey area between, "mentally ill" and merely "different". You think this isn't deliberate?

Why do so many Americans fail to see how "sick" the current US policy in Iraq is? Because they tend to believe what they are told by the media (we Aspies on the other hand tend to be more critical, which is one reason the establishment see us as a threat) and this in turn explains why the control freaks go to such ends to control said media. Are Aspie obsessions a sickness? They pale into insignificance compared to the demented way some establishment types seek to micromanage every aspect of their environment, to ensure the maximum advantage of they and their kind, and the maximum exploitation of all other categories (including most NTs; the ordinary people aren't our enemy, they're as much victims as we are, albeit more willing participents in their own downfall). This isn't an occasional interest either, it's a 24/7 pursuit!

So Link, it's hardly a surprise if the definitions are irrational, as they are controlled by the people who are the sickest, and the most inimical to humanity and the environment, who are absolutely driven to achieving immediate self-gratification at the exclusion of all else or the consideration of the long term effects of their actions. You don't have to look any further than the policies of Bush and his neo-cons to see examples of this at work!

That such types have a strangle hold on the mass media is surely beyond question? It follows then that they will do their damnedest to both perpetuate bogus theories, and control the Aspie web sites, in order to impose their "message" and drown out our attemts to acquire reforms and freedom from discrimination. Sounds far fetched? Then you don't understand yet the depth of their obssession to have everything their own way; for someone prepared to splash several million on a newspaper that's losing money, bunging some cash at a few trolls, to encourage them to study us and our attitudes, and to copy them in order to infiltrate and control succesful Aspie sites, is just a drop in the ocean!