Re: Re: anti cure (was A.F.F Must ...)

[Guest guest]

:

> There is a radical side to pro-cure as well.There is a difference

> between pro cure and anti-acceptence of the individual.

Not in my opinion. However, being part of Autism-iron for

a while, I notice that many pro cure people are refering

to comorbidities when they want to cure autism. In that

sense, Amy and pro cure want the same thing. At least

this is true for the radical pro cure groups that concentrate

on toxins. I can sympathize with their ideas of chelation

and so on if it improves quality of life issues. Even if these

groups believe they can cure autism, they really don't,

and most importantly, they do not cause harm to autistics

unless they use dangerous chelation protocols.

The ABA-phalange, OTOH, is a really awful

movement that should receive ZERO funding.

They are the one's that give autistics PTSD and many

other additional problems Anybody supporting them

cannot work in the best interest of autistics.The same

goes for CAN. They support eugenics and autistic

genocide, and nobody sane should support such things.

> Autism is a

> disability, it has nothing to do with replacing the person.

The objective of ABA is to replace the autistic with

an NT. The objective of CAN is that no autistic

should be born (genocide).

> Yet for most part the concept of a cure is subjectable in meaning,

> quality of life improvements are part of what is reffered to as a cure.

Only when it comes to the groups involved with toxins.

> A.F.F is trying to stop vitial funding needed for research.

Nope. They should receive support on this matter.

Leif

[Guest guest]

Listen,Your brain washed N.T nonsense is ignorance, there is no N.T conspiricy against people with autism. It's all part of that social programming.In real life there are real people, A.F.F wants to control everything, they should back the hell off.Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote: : > There is a radical side to pro-cure as well.There is a difference > between pro cure and anti-acceptence of the individual. Not in my opinion. However, being part of Autism-iron for a while, I notice that many pro cure people are refering to comorbidities when they want to cure autism. In that sense, Amy and pro cure want the same thing. At least this is true for the radical pro cure groups that concentrate on toxins. I can sympathize with their ideas of chelation and so

on if it improves quality of life issues. Even if these groups believe they can cure autism, they really don't, and most importantly, they do not cause harm to autistics unless they use dangerous chelation protocols. The ABA-phalange, OTOH, is a really awful movement that should receive ZERO funding. They are the one's that give autistics PTSD and many other additional problems Anybody supporting them cannot work in the best interest of autistics.The same goes for CAN. They support eugenics and autistic genocide, and nobody sane should support such things. > Autism is a > disability, it has nothing to do with replacing the person. The objective of ABA is to replace the autistic with an NT. The objective of CAN is that no autistic should be born (genocide). > Yet for most part the concept of a cure is subjectable in meaning, > quality of life improvements are part of what

is reffered to as a cure. Only when it comes to the groups involved with toxins. > A.F.F is trying to stop vitial funding needed for research. Nope. They should receive support on this matter. Leif New Songhttp://www.aspergershosting.com/audio/Onwah.wma

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Guest guest]

:

> Your brain washed N.T nonsense is ignorance, there

> is no N.T conspiricy against people with autism.

Look, , I suppose next you will tell me that

we have been persecuted by social authorities more

than 10 years, and that this is not persecution, but

some kind altruistic act?

> It's all part of that social programming.

What social programming? I've not been programmed.

My views of autism (and my family) was present long

before I ever knew what it was and before I meet

others. If anything, it is *your* social programming

that makes you unable to see the Aspie - NT

continuum and the persecution.

Leif

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> Leif's ethics in this area tend to get shunted aside in favor of his

> own personal goals.

My goals are to persuade researchers to change perspective.

My goals are not really in organizing support groups or

things like that. Others can do this better than I can.

> Restated: Leif doesn't give a damn how many autistics AFF hurts with

> their inappropriate, immoral, and hurtful actions, as long as HIS

> personal goals for autistics are fought for by AFF and/or achieved.

Not true.

I've explictly told people that wanted to cooperate with me

that I would not partake in any research activities that I find

not useful or hurtful for autistics. That certainly includes all

disorder research on basic, autistic traits. It does not include

comorbidities.

> This seems to be a pattern with Leif.

>

> He could care less that you and I, , Inger, Phil , Joe

> Mele, Donna and many, many others have been hurt by AFF.

Not true either, but I don't control AFF, so I cannot do much about

their policies and behaviors. I can also remind people of what went

on as Gareth was part of this forum. It wasn't exactly pretty.

> And he would rather halt scientific studies entirely rather than

> allow such studies to result in seeing the medical,

> vocational, and public aid he needs to survive in this world.

When did I say that? I'm not for halting useful scientific studies.

However, I don't find studies that rely on autism being a kind

brain damage as useful. It will stigmatize every autistic, in addition

to leading nowhere.

Leif

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> Okay. Then why don't we all stop sqabbling and see if we can start

> thinking of ideas about how we can work together?

OK, why don't we?

> had the ideas of an for a multi-board e-mail list. That's a

> good start. What about putting a bunch of petitions on his site that

> people can log into and sign? After we have enough signatures, we

> can send them into folks we are petitioning.

Sounds reasonable to me.

> " ...but I don't control AFF, so I cannot do much about their

> policies and behaviors. "

>

> You can withdraw from their Autism Assembly and their site like the

> rest of us did and encourage others to do the same.

Not until there is a functional alternative.

Leif

[Guest guest]

On 4 Apr 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote:

> Restated: Leif doesn't give a damn how many autistics AFF hurts

> with their inappropriate, immoral, and hurtful actions, as long

> as HIS personal goals for autistics are fought for by AFF and/or

> achieved.

That presumes his personal goals are at odds with the needs of

others in that regard. If he's talking " no cure " , he's not

alone.

As to A.F.F. and their other activities, I suppose if the

individuals supported a cause that I was offended by, I'd be

inclined to ignore them. I don't see their outside causes as

having any significant tie-in with their autism advocacy.

As to A.F.F. being unreasonable to others, that lessens their

credibility and effectiveness.

- s

[Guest guest]

On 4 Apr 2006 greebohere wrote:

> I do not like extreme views either way. Helping people with

> autism can be good - as long as it is not forced and causing

> damage, which unfortunately has sometimes been the case.

My take is that if there is something called " cure " but it is

really a way of teaching people (autistics) to recognize some

things related to autism, than I could accept that. Not the

" cure " part; only the part about the education. Likewise, if I

had more of a verbalization issue, I would use a voicewriter

(talking keyboard).

But consider what a " cure " in the sense of making one into an NT

entails. The only drug shown to have effect was taken off the

market after Lauretta Bender's experiments. In this regard,

Leary was correct, but who is willing to go back to

treating autistics with LSD? (Leary suggested to self medicate

and self regulate, as opposed to Lauretta Bender's ritalin-like

daily regimen. But he was also talking about " mind expansion "

and not cure as described by Lauretta Bender.

(Lauretta Bender's articles had such titles as " LSD-25 Helps

Schizophrenic Children " , identifying autism as childhood

schizophrenia.)

http://www.neurodiversity.com/library_index.html

If you're looking for a cure that isn't a euphanism for

education, then:

1) you're either in favor of LSD-type experiments, or

2) you have what you think is a better idea.

And if it is effective, would you want to do it? If it was

proven safe (which could easily be done, clinically), AND if it

actually was a cure and not expanded education... then would you

do it?

My personal answer is no. At least not if it's a cure.

- s

[Guest guest]

What the average doctors thinks, not the mad scientists are best for a balanced realistic view.Stan's Computer <vze2txm3@...> wrote: On 4 Apr 2006 greebohere wrote: > I do not like extreme views either way. Helping people with > autism can be good - as long as it is not forced and causing > damage, which unfortunately has sometimes been the case. My take is that if there is something called "cure" but it is really a way of teaching people (autistics) to recognize some things related to autism, than I could accept that. Not the "cure" part; only the part about the education. Likewise, if I had more of a verbalization issue, I would use a voicewriter (talking keyboard). But consider what a "cure" in the sense of making one into an NT

entails. The only drug shown to have effect was taken off the market after Lauretta Bender's experiments. In this regard, Leary was correct, but who is willing to go back to treating autistics with LSD? (Leary suggested to self medicate and self regulate, as opposed to Lauretta Bender's ritalin-like daily regimen. But he was also talking about "mind expansion" and not cure as described by Lauretta Bender. (Lauretta Bender's articles had such titles as "LSD-25 Helps Schizophrenic Children", identifying autism as childhood schizophrenia.) http://www.neurodiversity.com/library_index.html If you're looking for a cure that isn't a euphanism for education, then: 1) you're either in favor of LSD-type experiments, or 2) you have what you think is a better idea. And if it is effective, would you want to do

it? If it was proven safe (which could easily be done, clinically), AND if it actually was a cure and not expanded education... then would you do it? My personal answer is no. At least not if it's a cure. - s New Songhttp://www.aspergershosting.com/audio/Onwah.wma

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Guest guest]

On 5 Apr 2006 Young wrote:

> What the average doctors thinks, not the mad scientists are best

> for a balanced realistic view.

The issue is whether one accepts the view of average doctors

regarding whether autism is something to be cured in the first

place. I do not, just as I don't ask a doctor about how to fix

my car or whether to become vegan.

Besides, Lauretta Bender was a published, recognized

psyciatrist. About as mainstream as one can get.

> Stan's Computer wrote:

> My take is that if there is something called " cure " but it is

> really a way of teaching people (autistics) to recognize some

> things related to autism, than I could accept that. Not the

> " cure " part; only the part about the education. ...

>

> But consider what a " cure " in the sense of making one into an NT

> entails. ... Lauretta Bender's experiments.

[Guest guest]

That is a weird post, most of which I don't entirely grasp in comparitive reasoning. Autism or not thare are programmers whom do not have autism.What are peoples problems with psychiatry, I have only a few problems, yet that is subjectible to my experiences with the few whom I do have problems with.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: Just wanted to say that it may seem I am not being very compassionate with the response I gave below. I wanted to assure you that nothing can be further from the truth. I understand that non-autistics suffer a signifcant social impairment, which is why I deign to give them my love, time and attention so often. If I ever win the lottery, my intention is to open a school for non- autistics whereby they can learn proper social

instruction. I figure that if we Aspies can invent computer programs that everyone can use without training or without an instruction manual (Bit Torrent, WinZip, Windows, etc.) we can certainly invent a way of teaching non-autistics to increase their memory skills, broaden their vocabularies, and develop proper social skills, and without them using lies and deception while they implement these socialization methods. Those non-autistics that do not respond to basic training and instruction would be medicated, and those that failed to respond to medication would be restrained, hit, and bludgeoned using methods approved by the American Psychiatric Association, such as Applied Behavior Analysis. (Given that non-autistics have no moral quibbles about using such methods on autistics, I'm sure they would thrive on methods of their own invention such as ABA.) I even have a vocational

program conceptualized. Clearly with the demonstrated intelligence and social skills that non-autistics possess, they (with a little extra training) should have no problem getting jobs in the janitorial, housekeeping, restauant server, or trash collection industries. Non-autistics demonstrating superior aptitude (the ability to use turn signals while driving, the ability to stay focued on their work for more than three minutes at a time without digressing into childish social bantering, etc.,) could be given higher level jobs, such as newspaper and mail delivery, mass-mailing envelop stuffing, and basket weaving. These non-autistics could even paritally pay for their training through profits gained from these vocational endeavors. I've got it all figured out. Tom Administrator "You don't frown at people do you?" I have an Aspie face. How I look in that picture is what I look like when I am happy. I never willingly frown for any reason, but when I am deeply thinking about what someone is saying, I APPEAR to frown. In reality I am giving the person I am talking to my full attention and seriously considering what they have to say. I ignore THEIR facial expressions because they can be misinterpreted in so many different ways that it's pointless to pay attention to them. I consider this very courteous on my part. Additionally, more often than not, I have seen non-Aspies engaged in conversation distract each other with facial and arm gestures while telling lies to each other. I know these were lies being told because I was told the truth before the

conversation took place. So non-Aspie facial gestures, posturing, stance, arm movements, and voice intonation cannot be relied upon and ought to be ignored if reliable open, honest, and straightforward communication is to take place. Ask the Aspies here and they will tell you they can tell when a person is lying or not because they may SAY one thing even as their body says another. "Do you 'open' yourself up?" I don't believe in opening myself up to people who won't remember or care about anything I've said 5 minutes after I say it. For them to treat me that way dishonors me. It's rude and disrespectful. It is a waste of my time and only causes me to disrespect them. I also can't think of them nicely when they value social niceties above true intimacy between people. It's as if they are in it for something (what they can get out of it most likely) but not trying to get to know

the true person. "Are your arms crossed signaling people to back off?" My arms would be crossed because that's what is most comfortable to me. The signal that people interpret from my crossed arms is based on their own social prejudices which they are too arrogant and/or underconfident to get around or overcome. If they don't want to get to know me because of the way I keep my arms while talking to them, then these are shallow people not worth knowing. "I notice when n gets out of school his head is down and his arms are crossed and he walks quickly as if to tell people he is not interested in interacting with them." He does this because he knows what I know: Most people are shallow and not worth knowing. But those who are TRULY interested in knowing him will approach him regardless of his posture or stance. "Just an observation, not saying it's bad. If he doesn't want

to interact with some of the snobs that go to his school, I certainly understand..." He wants to interact with people. But he wants to interact on a deeper level than most non-Aspies are capable of operating on. When I go to parties with my non-Aspie relatives, I notice that the topic of conversation between a group of five people shifts every 45 seconds or so. Yet when I talk with Aspies, we can talk about things for 45 MINUTES without changing the subject, and we get annoyed if anyone goes off on a tangent. Possibly non-autistics are just incapable of having an attention span that lasts more than 45 seconds, or maybe their neurological difference is such that they cannot think abstractly enough to keep a conversation going in any sort of depth for a long period of time. Or maybe their social skills are such that they cannot keep a conversation going for 45 minutes on just one toipic.

It's hard to say. But I know that while I CAN shift topics every 45 seconds and talk about nothing of substance at social gathering for three hours straight, it is mind-numbingly boring, and a wasteful expendature of mental energy. Also, it insults my intelligence, therefore it is beneath me. Tom Administrator New

Songhttp://www.aspergershosting.com/audio/Onwah.wma

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.