Blinders won’t reduce autism -by Jon Poling

[Ophelia]

THANK YOU Jon Poling!!!

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...nged_0313.html

“Pesticides, mercury, aluminum, several drugs, dietary factors, infectious agents and yes — vaccines — are all in the research agenda.”

“As both parent and doctor, I cannot fathom turning my back on a child nor science, in order to avoid inconvenient questions about vaccine safety or any other reasonable environmental factor.”

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by polling

After Offit’s drama is complete, these cheerleaders fail to realize they have traveled the road labeled “Dead End — No Through Traffic.” In his epilogue, Offit credits autism parents who have likewise gone down the dead end path to autism acceptance, without search for cause or cure.

As both parent and doctor, I cannot fathom turning my back on a child nor science, in order to avoid inconvenient questions about vaccine safety or any other reasonable environmental factor.

I read this as him saying parents who accept their childs autism are turning their backs on their children. Is this everybody elses reading?

[Ophelia]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I read this as him saying parents who accept their childs autism are turning their backs on their children. Is this everybody elses reading?

My interpretation is he's talking about the docs who say 'sorry, your kid has autism. there is no cure. go home and do your best". sort of thing. and how many people say that the vaccine/autism controversy has been laid to rest and no more studies should be done on it.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Ophelia

My interpretation is he's talking about the docs who say 'sorry, your kid has autism. there is no cure. go home and do your best". sort of thing. and how many people say that the vaccine/autism controversy has been laid to rest and no more studies should be done on it.

OK. I wondered about that interpretation, it's not how I read it, but I can certainly see how you could. I'd have to know more about Polings position to be sure. If you're right, then I have much less of a problem with what he said.

[Deborah]

Well, let's say that a child is autistic and also has seizures or digestive problems or sensory problems. One camp tends to say "accept, accept" and the other camp tends to say "clues to underlying causes which can be treated."

The underlying causes group don't say: "we don't love our children because they are physically ill" any more than people whose children have a heart problem which can be treated with surgery.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Well, let's say that a child is autistic and also has seizures or digestive problems or sensory problems. One camp tends to say "accept, accept" and the other camp tends to say "clues to underlying causes which can be treated."

The underlying causes group don't say: "we don't love our children because they are physically ill" any more than people whose children have a heart problem which can be treated with surgery.

OK. I have in the past chatted quite a bit with the neuro-diverse mob, that's where I'm coming from here. I'm not entirely sold on what they have to say, but at the same time they aren't exactly passively accepting anything (Lord, no!). Also, in terms of treatments to improve their childrens quality of life, I had the impression that they were all for them. In as much as you can divide people into camps, their camp viewed the other camp as pushing speculative therapies that were probably useless and possibly harmful (chelation).

[Deborah]

My experience with the ND camp runs like this:

"Yes, we are fine with people treating any conditions which their autistic children may have."

however, when any parent describes treating their child and what happened (and this is not just about chelation), they will be attacked for not accepting their child, etc.

So I think there is a bit of a gap between the theory and the practice. The problem seems to be that autistic behaviors sometimes diminish as a result of treatments and the ND group feel this constitutes a loss or something like that.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Deborah

however, when any parent describes treating their child and what happened (and this is not just about chelation), they will be attacked for not accepting their child, etc.

You may well be right, certainly with regard to treatments to *correct* the neurological *damage*. Having said that my impression is that they don't feel that such treatments exist in any case. If they did believe it, I suspect they would feel quite uncomfortable about it. Both sides are better informed on this than I am, so I really just listen and nod.

Originally Posted by Deborah

So I think there is a bit of a gap between the theory and the practice. The problem seems to be that autistic behaviors sometimes diminish as a result of treatments and the ND group feel this constitutes a loss or something like that.

They are definately torn on this point. Personally I find it hard to come to a fixed position on the issue that isn't morally contradictory in this way.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by Deborah

My experience with the ND camp runs like this:

"Yes, we are fine with people treating any conditions which their autistic children may have."

however, when any parent describes treating their child and what happened (and this is not just about chelation), they will be attacked for not accepting their child, etc.

So I think there is a bit of a gap between the theory and the practice. The problem seems to be that autistic behaviors sometimes diminish as a result of treatments and the ND group feel this constitutes a loss or something like that.

Wow, this so describes the position of someone I know. I thought she just was very "opinionated". But the way you described that is exactly how she is and now I see it as more of a "group" thing. interesting.

[mamakay]

The neurodiversity position is that "real autism" is always genetic, and not really a "disorder" at all, but a normal variation, and that wanting to "cure" autism is as bigoted as wanting to cure African Americans of their darker skin.

[anewmama]

And if autism, autism is decidedly proven to be all genetic then I can get the position. But that's not the case is it?

[shuttlt]

At the risk of defending a position I don't really hold (well, I'm unsure on, anyway) and only half understand.... my conversations with ND people didn't seem to me to depend on autism (or whatever) being genetic. I can go off and ask, if you like?

[k9sarchik]

Good for Poling to bash Offitt!!! If anyone is can speak out it will be Poling.

[amnesiac]

Please remember that the focus of discussion in this forum should remain on vaccines.

[runes]

Science is moving forward to connect the three dots of environment, genes and plasticity of a developing child’s brain circuitry. In the end, logic and reason will prevail over politics and profits.

Jon Poling is a game-changer when it comes to finally getting to the bottom of this debate, and his optimism that "logic and reason will prevail " is refreshing.

[phrogger]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I read this as him saying parents who accept their childs autism are turning their backs on their children. Is this everybody elses reading?

I read it to mean that too often there are many parents who are willing to accept that things like this just happen, rather then trying to find out what caused it. I can debate therapies all day, but at the end of the day, we HAVE to find out what is causing this, and get more proof that these things we are doing to our kids IS causing this (vaccines, genetic predispositions with external triggers even during pg etc). We have to accept our kids for who they are now, but still trying to prevent this from happening to others. It is a fine line and many feel if they say we should prevent this, they are saying their kids are imperfect. I personally am not saying that at all, but I am saying that vaccines damaged my child in ways that he NEVER should have been damaged.