Re: Attack Of The Aspies

[Guest guest]

> nothing about what an " aspies " brain looks like. It only describes people

> who isolate themselves socially for a variety of reasons.

Obviously this guy hasn't met very many ACs. Only *some* ACs are shy and

introverted.

(this seems to be a very commonly held misconception, but introversion is

not autism, and autism doesn't imply introversion - there are *VERY*

extroverted ACs, and they are no less autistic then the introverted ones)

--

[Guest guest]

jypsy [ janet norman-bain ] wrote:

> Attack Of The " Aspies "

I am at a loss as to why you would post that here. If you really think

it had value you should have done several things differently. First you

should have introduced it, explained that you found this and where. Give

us some context, add a disclaimer that this is not your view (unless of

course it is) then give us a short excerpt from it and post the link.

The way you did it makes it look like it is you writing it and that you

are giving us your opinion. Much better would have been if the main part

of your email had consisted of you telling us your opinion of this article.

Remember that it is one person's opinion, that of someone who has a

personal vendetta against the established medical community. He is

someone who gets to feel important by attacking the establishment and he

does not even have an audience. His website is actually a private

journal left open for anyone to see.

In other words the only validation he gets is by people like you

publishing his rantings.

A.

[Guest guest]

Just take a look at the personal attacks going on in this group between

people who don't like another's opinion!

Attack Of The " Aspies "

>

>

http://rickgiombetti.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_rickgiombetti_archive.html#1083

65742153136595

>

> 5.4.2004

>

> 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.

>

> I put the term " Disorder " in quotes because that is the word the American

> Psychiatric Association (APA) uses to describe every one of its diagnoses

> in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It's a

> manual of mental disorders but the diagnoses in it have been fraudulent

> marketed to the public by psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry,

> with lazy and credulous journalists in tow, as a brain diseases, even

> though they are not. Now what is the difference between a disease and a

> mental disorder? That would require having a working definition of the two

> terms in order to make a distinction between the two. Well, you're not

> going to find a definition of what is a disease in the DSM. In fact the

DSM

> doesn't even offer up a definition for a mental disorder is. On page XXX

of

> the introduction to the revised text version of the DSM-IV it states under

> the section titled " Definition of Mental Disorder " : " Although this manual

> provides a classification of mental disorders, it must be admitted that no

> definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of

> 'mental disorder.' "

>

> In short, a mental disorder can be anything anybody, including non-medical

> professionals, can diagnose because there is no definition of what it is

> and the DSM covers such a broad range of behaviors with its 300 plus

> diagnoses that the notion of " mental disorder " could be applied to

anybody.

> One year homosexuality is considered a mental disorder. The next year it

is

> not on the basis of a political pressure campaign, not laboratory

evidence,

> as happened with the homosexuality diagnosis in the early 70s. It's worth

> nothing that " Malingering, " or pretending to be ill when one is not, is a

> sign of a mental disorder. For me this diagnosis epitomizes the fraud the

> entire manual is. Even when you're not really sick, but only pretending to

> be sick, you're sick according to the APA in the DSM.

>

> Unlike the DSM, Szasz delves into this topic of what is a disease

> and a mental disorder in a detailed and clear manner in his book Insanity:

> The Idea and Its Consequences. In this book Szasz compares the addition

and

> exclusion of mental disorders in the DSM to the way a parliamentary body

> votes for or against legislation. The reason for this is because mental

> disorders are metaphorical diseases, such love sickness, not real medical

> diseases. When a homeless man at the corner of 6th and Pine in downtown

> Seattle protests his eviction from a low-income apartment building with a

> sign that says the Seattle Police are a bunch of Communist Devils and he

is

> the Son of God, according to psychiatric terminology he is believed to be

> suffering from " schizophrenia. " In reality he's simply exercising his

First

> Amendment rights in a manner polite Seattle society disapproves of, but

> defines as a sign of sickness. A disease on the other hand is a visibly

> demonstrable lesion or other physical abnormality, such cancer or

> hepatitis. As retired child neurologist Fred Baughman has put it over the

> years: No physical abnormality, no disease!

>

> Now this is a matter of plain English, but the psychiatric profession and

> the pharmaceutical industry have managed to muddy up the clear distinction

> between a mental disorder and a disease to the point where nobody knows

> what the two terms mean or how to distinguish one between the other. The

> fact that psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry have gotten away with

> marketing mental disorders as brain diseases is one of the great

propaganda

> achievements of our age.

>

> The issue of whether or not Asperger's is a disease can be easily decided

> by simply reading the description of it offered up in the DSM-IV-TR on

> pages 80 - 84. The NY Times misleading states that Asperger's is a

> neurologically based brain disease. This is simply not true, as it is in

> reality another mental disorder listed in the DSM. The description of

> Asperger's in the DSM-IV-TR describes only impaired social functioning in

a

> person with the diagnosis, not impaired physical functioning. It says

> nothing about what an " aspies " brain looks like. It only describes people

> who isolate themselves socially for a variety of reasons.

>

> Here is the first paragraph describing what Asperger's is: " The essential

> features of Asperger's Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in

> social interaction (Criterion A) and the development of restricted,

> repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities (Criterion .

> The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social,

> occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criterion C). In

> contrast to Autistic Disorder, there are no clinically significant delays

> or deviances in language acquisition (e.g.,single non-echoed words are

used

> communicatively by age 2 years, and spontaneous communicative phrases are

> used by age 3 years)(Criterion D), although more subtle aspects of social

> communication (e.g.,typical give and take in conversation) may be

affected.

> In addition, during the first 3 years of life, there are no clinically

> significant delays in cognitive development as manifested by expressing

> normal curiosity about the environment or in the acquisition of

> age-appropriate learning skills and adaptive behaviors (other than in

> social interaction)(Criterion E). Finally, the criteria are not met for

> another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or for Schizophrenia

> (Criterion F). This condition is also termed Asperger's Syndrome. "

>

> On and on the description of Asperger's goes in the DSM-IV-TR in this

> manner. So there you have it. Asperger's has nothing to do with physical

> abnormalities and, hence, nothing to do with an objective medical

> diagnosis. There is one more point to make here about this diagnosis. In

> the NY Times feature, the author mentions the possibility of a genetic

> basis for the disorder. There is one problem with this though, and that

> would be the fact that " aspies " are people who persistently avoid social

> interaction. This suggests that they don't reproduce at rates high enough

> to make any genetics claims about them, as is the case with so-called

> schizophrenics. I mean it's kind of hard to have children if you're not

> interacting socially with other people. Now, for you people with bad

> reading comprehension skills out there, I didn't say " aspies " never

> reproduce, but that it is likely they reproduce at rates so low that

> genetics claims can't be made about them. Now I don't doubt for one second

> that there are plenty of " research " initiatives out there to find a

> biological cause for Asperger's, as there are for other mental disorders

in

> the DSM. These " research " initiatives will then be trumpeted as proof of a

> biological basis for Asperger's, as is done with ADHD, schizophrenia and

> countless other mental disorders, even though none of this " research "

leads

> to a physical test for detecting a mental disorder. As Fred Baughman has

> said over the years, without an objective test to detect a disease any

> " research " into said disease is fundamentally fraudulent and unethical.

>

> 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.

> posted by rick giombetti

> 12:57 AM - Permanent Link

> Comments (5)

>

>

> ________________________________

> Ooops....Wrong Planet! Syndrome

> Autism Spectrum Resources

> www.PlanetAutism.com

> jypsy@...

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 07:48 AM 5/19/2004 -0700, acsnag@... wrote:

>jypsy [ janet norman-bain ] wrote:

>

>

> > Attack Of The " Aspies "

I did not write (as you see above):

> Attack Of The " Aspies "

I wrote:

http://rickgiombetti.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_rickgiombetti_archive.html#10836574\

2153136595

5.4.2004

Attack Of The " Aspies "

>I am at a loss as to why you would post that here. If you really think

>it had value you should have done several things differently. First you

>should have introduced it, explained that you found this and where. Give

>us some context, add a disclaimer that this is not your view (unless of

>course it is) then give us a short excerpt from it and post the link.

by posting the *link* first - and you'll note it does not match my sig line

at all, I thought I was introducing it and giving it it's context

( " blogspot.com " ) and I'm sorry you seem to be new and don't know me but I

believe most folks here know full well this is *not* my POV.

I'm sorry to have offended both your reading taste and your posting " rules " .

>The way you did it makes it look like it is you writing it and that you

>are giving us your opinion. Much better would have been if the main part

>of your email had consisted of you telling us your opinion of this article.

noted.

>Remember that it is one person's opinion, that of someone who has a

>personal vendetta against the established medical community. He is

>someone who gets to feel important by attacking the establishment and he

>does not even have an audience. His website is actually a private

>journal left open for anyone to see.

>

>In other words the only validation he gets is by people like you

>publishing his rantings.

>

>A.

new rules in the treehouse ?

-jypsy

________________________________

Ooops....Wrong Planet! Syndrome

Autism Spectrum Resources

www.PlanetAutism.com

jypsy@...

[Guest guest]

acsnag@... wrote:

> I am at a loss as to why you would post that here. If you really

> think it had value you should have done several things differently.

> First you should have introduced it, explained that you found this

> and where. Give us some context, add a disclaimer that this is not

> your view (unless of course it is) then give us a short excerpt from

> it and post the link.

The way that Jypsy has been reposting things is just fine. It was

obvious that it was a repost, and people may take it or leave it.

[Guest guest]

Only *some* ACs are shy and

> introverted.

>

> (this seems to be a very commonly held misconception, but

introversion is

> not autism, and autism doesn't imply introversion - there are *VERY*

> extroverted ACs, and they are no less autistic then the introverted

ones)

>

> --

>

Well, that's true, because I'm an extroverted autistic myself, but I

can see where the person who wrote that journal entry can think that.

From what I've seen online, shy and introverted personality types do

tend to dominate among autistics, especially in the higher-

functioning end. I don't know why.

Guy

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> The way that Jypsy has been reposting things is just fine. It was

> obvious that it was a repost, and people may take it or leave it.

It may have been obvious to you but it certainly was not obvious to me.

I read it all the way to the end and kept wondering why someone with

that opinion would be on this list.

A.

[Guest guest]

I was very confused too, even though I know you :) :)

jypsy,

because I don'y readily get implied stuff. And did not understand that

the whole site address being related to the weird paragraphs attacking

aspies. Although I knew it wasn't your point of view, it was taking a

while ti sibk in.

Kim

Again, to please emoticon-ites -

________________________________________________________________

The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

D Tucker wrote:

>

> I was very confused too, even though I know you :) :)

> jypsy,

> because I don'y readily get implied stuff. And did not understand that

> the whole site address being related to the weird paragraphs attacking

> aspies. Although I knew it wasn't your point of view, it was taking a

> while ti sibk in.

> Kim

> Again, to please emoticon-ites -

>

I was also confused a bit at first too. I didn't make the connection

that the web reference at the beginning was where it was from. As I was

reading it, I was thinking, " she doesn't really think this way, does

she? " because I didn't think you, jypsy, felt that way, your web site is

one my favorites. But I skimmed the later parts of the posted article

and when I got down to the end, that was when I realized that that guy

had written it and you were quoting him. That was a relief to realize.

I guess I have a hard time getting implied stuff too.

--

the Dreamer

http://www.visi.com/~unique