Autism Street

Music is one of those things that affects me. My wife would readily explain that I can probably be one of the most unemotional people on the planet a lot of the time. I insist on facts, rely on thinking more than feeling, and most definitely take evidence over belief. But music puts me into zone where feeling creeps in. It’s hard to describe. As I watched Kevin’s very moving video “Beautiful Autism“, I realized that it is the combination of the pure natural beauty of his daughter and the emotion of the music and lyrics that made my eyes well up a little - with pure joy. That’s not a word I use often, or lightly for that matter, but it’s the only one that seems to fit.

A recent discussion of Katherine McCarron caused me to think again about why I think the way I do about my son. I try to think about what life will be like for him in his thirties. He will be different, but will that be a simple fact, or a fact for which society imposes an artificially defined value on him which is somehow less than neurotypical? If such pressure still exists (where many in society see autism as a defect) how will it affect him?

Read through the lyrics of this song, or better yet read along with the song playing if you own or have access to it (I think this set is closest to the version that appeared on the “Classic Queen” album). Turn it up loud and pay attention to strength and passion of certain parts. Pay attention to the way the music changes during the part “turned away from it all”.  Pay attention to the end, espcially the clock-like finger snapping.

Under Pressure - Queen & David Bowie

Um boom ba bay
Um boom ba bay
Um Um boom ba bay bay

Pressure pushing down on me
Pressing down on you no man ask for
Under pressure
That burns a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on streets

Um ba ba bay
Um ba ba bay
Dee day duh
Ee day duh

It’s the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming get me out!
Tomorrow takes me higher
Pressure on people
People on streets

Day day day
da da dup bup bup
Okay

Chippin’ around
kick my brains round the floor
These are the days
It never rains but it pours
Ee do bay bup
Ee do bay ba bup
Ee do bup
Bay bup
People on streets
Dee da dee da day
People on streets
Dee da dee da dee da dee da

It’s the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming let me out!
Tomorrow takes me high high higher

Turned away from it all
Like the blind man
Sat on a fence but it don’t work
Keep coming up with love
But it’s so slashed and torn
Why why why?

(Love, love, love, love)

Insanity laughs under pressure we’re cracking
Can’t we give ourselves one more chance?
Why can’t we give love that one more chance?
Why can’t we give love give love give love?
Give love give love give love give love give love give love?
Cause love’s such an old fashioned word
And love dares you to care
For the people on the edge of the night
And love dares you to change our way
Of caring about ourselves

This is our last dance
This is our last dance
This is ourselves
Under Pressure
Under Pressure
Pressure

My subjective interpretation of these lyrics:

This song can evoke a clear understanding of the process and results of social division - the creation of a societal line between accepted and undesirable. I see “puts people on the streets” as a metaphor for making one unwelcome, outcast, misunderstood - unaccepted.

I interpret “the terror of knowing what this world is about” as an acknowledgement of mortality. It encompasses life’s challenges and suffering, and is descriptive of a “meaning of life” that may not necessarily have special, indescribable meaning. “Watching some good friends screaming let me out!” illustrates the potential pain of being unaccepted in a life that just is (no supernatural, no afterlife, and the here and now may be all there is to it).

There are glimpses of good, and even real good, but being down under pressure (and possibly in pain) is a pervasive inevitability on life’s often acceptance-free roller coaster.

Trying to ignore hatred or stay neutral on understanding and acceptance proves difficult. Love and acceptance might be mutually exclusive of opression in emotional terms. Though this could be seen as a black and white logical fallacy - but ambivalence allows for mistreatment by others. This was similarly expressed by Elie Wiesel:

- “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

This seems crazy, why not acceptance? Why can’t understanding, acceptance, and love be what matters most? Because really loving may not be easy. Accepting those not necessarily popular to really care for by society at large, may make you unaccepted yourself and change the way you think about society in general.

Life is a one-time opportunity, we’re all in it, and it is not easy.

At the beginning of this post I mentioned that I wondered what life would be like for my son when he is in his thirties. In the present, I find it valuable to read what others have written on the subject. If you have never read the Getting The Truth Out website all the way through, you should. Ask yourself if the societal background is the one you want your child to live in, and ask yourself who you want to speak for you child.

Then, ask yourself the following three questions:

How do you treat people who are different?

What will you do help create the best life for your child who will always be different?

Do you want your child, friend, or anyone to be “Under Pressure” simply because of who they are?

Please read Getting The Truth Out in its entirety. 

What Would Cameron Have Said To Katherine McCarron?

In Memoriam - Katherine McCarron 

Dear Parents, 

Cameron can’t send Katherine McCarron a letter, nor could he ever meet her. She is not here. He would have had something to say to her in his own words. Before I get to that, I should tell you a little more. Cameron, similar to Katherine (when she was here), has autism. He would definitely have something to tell her, but certainly not before he made at least a few trips circling her, watching her from his peripheral vision. He might have even run off (I’m using the word run loosely) for a little bit; it just kind of depends on who else is around, and what kind of mood he is in. Don’t worry, if he does run off, he would be back eventually; maybe with a toy, maybe with something he can spin really fast. Once he was pretty comfortable, which doesn’t take too long usually (but sometimes it can, and might even have to be during a second, third, or even fourth or fifth visit), he would have talked to her. What would he have had to say? I’m not going to tell you. I’ll let him say it himself.

Read more…

Please don’t miss an excellent post by Autism Diva, Alison Tepper Singer and the Rett Girls.

She’ll provide a glimpse of reality within Rett Syndrome  - reality in the form of true appreciation for the life of a child.

But she’ll also take a closer look at Autism Speaks and the “Autism - Every Day” video.

Autism Speaks commissioned a video called Autism Every Day to be made for a fundraising gala, presumably to impress upon the potential donors the nightmare that autism is, to cancel out any positive views of autism they may have developed from watching the J-Mac video, to hint at autism being caused by an external agent of some kind, and to send the message, “help us figure out how to stop autism because it may be your child next.”

and ask a tough question of Alison Tepper-Singer (the senior vice-president of Autism Speaks).

What if Ms Singer’s daughter was for some reason diagnosed with Rett syndrome, or the MECP2 mutation, tomorrow?

Would Ms. Singer have to learn to stop the infernal kvetching for the camera and suck it up? Would she ever learn to really appreciate her child in spite of the hardships that might be there? Would she learn that there are hardships everywhere in life and no guarrantees for anyone? Would she cease whining about the career she gave up for her child? Would she apologize to her daughters for helping to create what looks much like an autism-hostile environment in their home?

This makes me wonder if an organization such as Autism Speaks is capable of ever getting past appeals to pity and devastation. If they can move on to funding real scientific research that leads to understanding etiologies and provides basis for true advocacy and assistance for individuals and families who need it (simply because such assistance helps maximize potential), then the pity party to raise money and awareness (based on that pity) can wind down. Otherwise, they might be better served by a name change to “Autism Weeps”.

If you’d like to comment on the story above, discussion is at the Autism Diva blog. 

The Greater Phoenix Chapter of the Autism Society of America has apparently put out a pretty slick-looking new website (maybe it’s been around for a while, I’m not really sure). The conference section contains a conference scheduled for this coming June at an ASU campus, but the announcement has apparently been revised - readers may recall that I had previously written to ASU president Michael Crow asking that he consider ASU’s involvement (by use of facilities) with such a conference (enabling promotion of chelation therapy as an autism treatment).

Of course promoting the use of chelation therapy as an autism treatment, even on a research basis, essentially begs the same tired old questions:

1. Is there any scientific proof that mercury causes autism?

2. Is there any scientific proof that autistics have higher levels of mercury?

3. Are there any scientific standards and methodology with supporting normative studies that even define when a person with autism actually suffers from body-burden mercury toxicity?

If you’re going to comment on this aspect, cite peer-reviewed research available on Pubmed only please - I’m not interested in unproven theories, or articles from JAPandS, etc.

Here’s the interesting thing about this apparently revised announcement:

-In the revised announcement, Walter Crinnion, ND is now referred to as “Detoxification Expert” when he had previously been referred to as “Chelation Experts”.

-References to the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine’s chelation study and chelation are referred to as “DMSA treatment study”, “DMSA therapy”, and “treatment study to remove toxic metals from children with autism”.

Not one use of the word “chelation”.

I guess that could satisfy ASU’s president, Michael Crow.

Dear Dr. Crow, It’s still chelation.

Dr. Crow had responded promptly to my first inquiry

“Thank you for your e-mail regarding the upcoming conference to be hosted next month by the Greater Phoenix Chapter of the Autism Society at the West campus of ASU. As a public institution of higher learning, ASU believes in the open and free exchange of information and ideas. Ultimately, it is up to parents to determine if they should attend the conference and how they feel about the information being presented. Any concerns relative to the content of the conference should be communicated to the Greater Phoenix Chapter of the Autism Society of America”

I don’t have a problem with “open and free exchange of information and ideas”, and stated as much in my first letter.

Dear Dr. Crow, Does this mean you think that potential misinformation should be allowed the same free-range existence at ASU?

I also agree that it IS ultimately up to the parents to determine if they should attend. How they “feel” about information presented has no relevance on whether or not the information is actually misinformation. What matters is, do they understand the scientific validity of the so-called ‘information’ being presented?

Dear Dr. Crow, Do you think that most families (and especially those that may be ”new to a diagnosis”) have the relevant training or research background to understand the information? Or, are they more likely to take what’s presented at face value (with the ASU name being indirectly attached to that face value)? While I don’t disagree that it is ultimately the parents’ responsibility to make an informed decision about raising or caring for their children’s health, do you think potential misinformation or omissions assist those parents in making such informed decisions?

Any concerns about content should be communicated to the GPC ASA?

Dear Dr. Crow, If one were concerned about the content of a sales pitch, do you think the best objective resource to evaluate such concern would be the person or group making the sales pitch?

The 34th Meeting of the Skeptic’s Circle is up at The Seond Sight. What more can I add but the cliche that it is a gem?

Don’t miss Ballastexistenz’s thought provoking discussion of Facilitated Communication, and an excellent thumbnail view of homeopathy by The Bad Homeopath.

As ususal, good stuff from Orac and Prometheus, among many others.

Rock Solid!

Alternate Title: Skeptical of the so-called skeptical of the skeptics  

The world of so-called Complementary and Alternative Medicine never ceases to be creative. Although the argument presented is a classic “Other Ways Of Knowing” fallacy among others, an essay by the “Health Ranger“, Mike Adams did catch and keep my attention.

You can read the entire article over at NewsTarget.com, without interruption of my comment. I recommend reading it through once first, then come back and read my comments. If you’re a true skeptic, you’ll find it entertaining, well-written, and an overall good read. After all it can’t hurt to question your own skepticism can it? If you’re a “believer” it’s going to stroke you in all the right ways, make you feel justified in making decisions based on your emotions and all that kind of stuff. Is reality really all it’s cracked up to be anyway? Uh, yes, yes it is.

Here’s the link to the original article:

Skeptical about the skeptics: The Health Ranger answers the skeptics on natural medicine  

The Health Ranger says:

Whenever I really want to be amused, I spend a few minutes reading the latest admonishments and retortments from the extreme skeptics of natural medicine. By “extreme skeptics,” I don’t mean actual critical thinkers who apply genuine open-minded curiosity to the world around them, I mean the pseudoscientific zealots who berate anyone who believes in acupuncture, massage therapy, homeopathy, herbal medicine, sunlight therapy, breath therapy, meditation or any number of other natural healing modalities. They think vitamins are useless, acupuncture is quackery, and that all medical treatment should be limited to drugs, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

Berating of anyone is unnecessary and an emotional attack that is not an intrinsic part of real skepticism. Beliefs in the “healing” modalities have zero bearing on their efficacy and are irrelevant. The generalization of “extreme skeptics” as thinking that all medical treatment should be limited to drugs, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy is baseless and oversimplified. Many dyed-in-the-wool skeptics would welcome other proven treatment modalities that include, but are not limited to: nutrition, exercise, education, and allowing healing without intervention if such healing is proven to be likely. The characteristic one can generalize about such extreme skeptics is that they’re not going to take your word for it; you’d better be able to provide proof.

These extreme skeptics are truly impressive in the depth of their knowledge: There is nothing true in the universe that they don’t already know. All science has already been discovered, they proclaim, and therefore all new “whacky” ideas about vibrational healing, energy medicine or nutritional therapy are based on nothing but quackery. That’s why they’ve constructed an intellectual moat in order to keep all such bad ideas out of the Church of Logic.

This is utterly false and uninformed. An admittedly hardcore skeptic will tell you that there is likely far more that is unknown, and that science will never be finished. No true skeptic would ever claim that science has all the answers. You may have seen terms like “wacky” or “woo-woo”, but they essentially all boil down to the same thing - based on belief, and not proven. If such things were proven, they’d be considered mainstream (and might even qualify for the JREF million dollar prize, depending on the nature of the claim). If there is an intellectual moat, as suggested, there’s a giant drawbridge and it’s always open to evidence.

I’ve also learned from these omniscient rationalists that there is no such thing as mysterious, invisible energy vibrations. I’m not sure how radios work, then, or magnets, or nuclear medicine, or the subatomic weak nuclear force, or quantum computing, or even the vibrating piece of crystal that governs the clock on my computer’s CPU, but I’m pretty sure it’s only because I’m too stupid to understand genuine “scientific thinking,” which is apparently based on learning how to invoke obfuscating scientific-sounding incantations to support conclusions you have previously committed to.

This is a fallacious argument from ignorance. Just because one doesn’t understand it, doesn’t mean it cannot be explained. This view of scientific thinking, is ignorant of the basic premises of science, and the author employs the very fallacy of complicated words he suggests defines scientific thinking. One could try wikipedia for some real basics on the Scientific Method.

More importantly, I’ve also learned from these skeptics that the universe operates in pure Newtonian fashion like a giant pinball machine, and that free will, creativity, love, intuition and faith are merely illusory notions invoked by chemical balances in the brain that should be treated with psychiatric drugs. Because, of course, people who actually FEEL anything are obviously irrational and have no place in our pinball machine universe.

It’s a free country, believe or have faith in whatever you want. If it’s intended to be sold as science or medicine, be prepared to prove it.

Many of these extreme skeptics, I’ve also learned, don’t even believe in their own free will, since consciousness (they’ve explained to me) is merely a fleeting projection of a physical brain that operates like a wondrously complex Turing machine. This has me pondering an important question: Who does a skeptic think is offering the opinions of skepticism if that same skeptic does not believe in the existence of his own consciousness?

Consciousness is not a matter of belief. A true skeptic does not “believe” anything. True skeptics think. Consciousness and existence could be defined by that thinking.

By definition, then, the opinions of all such skeptics are of no greater consequence than two billiard balls bouncing off each other because even they do not believe they exist as conscious beings capable of creating inspired thought. Thus, if you take their word for it, extreme skeptics have the same level of consciousness as, say, your average armadillo. They self-admittedly have none, in fact, making such skeptics about as intelligent as a brass doorknob, but far less useful. A doorknob, at least, can open something. But extreme skeptics remain forever closed to new ideas.

By this malformed definition, I can see how it could be interpreted this way, but opinions are of little relevance to reality. Taking a skeptic’s “word for it” is directed to “believers” and would be discouraged by true skeptics. Even the most die hard of the skeptics are open to new ideas, but they have to be testable and falsifiable. True skeptics do remain forever closed to new ideas that are unfalsifiable - those are for the faithful.

I once asked a skeptic how he could be sure there was nothing else in the universe besides the physical, and he gave me an answer that basically translates into, “I intuitively felt so.” Normally, I would call such a person a complete idiot, but most skeptics are actually well educated. They are clearly not idiots. Rather, they are purveyors of self-aggrandizing reductionism who suffer under the cult-like illusion that hyper-rational, compartmentalized, Descartian logic is the one and only way to arrive at any sort of truth.

He asked one skeptic and translates the generalization to all? Skeptics are not concerned with just “any sort of truth”; they aim for scientific reality with replicable proof. This reality is subject to revision, change, and refinement at all times. If the author has a better way of knowing to offer, a better way to get to the truth, I’m all ears. Don’t forget to bring some proof, otherwise this claim is about as vacuous as they get.

Their belief in the superiority of selective logic bounded by preordained conceptual blinders is as zealotistic and pompous as any fanatical religion, but far less believable because to become a member of the Church of Logic, you have to pledge exclusive faith to a system of philosophy that disavows the concept of faith altogether. What the members of this church are missing is the idea that metaphor, or meditation, or storytelling, or dreaming is often far truer and a whole lot more interesting than mere logic. Or that food, sunlight and water are powerful medicine. Certainly logic is one way to look at the universe, and it is a useful way for many things, but it is hardly the only way. In fact, for the things that really matter (like happiness, compassion, or love), logic is practically irrelevant.

I can see how it might be interpreted as pompous or fanatical, true skeptics can appear “obsessed” with reality. And he’s correct that faith is definitely not an intrinsic part of science or skepticism. To conclude that this detracts from truth or interest depends on how one defines truth or interesting - it’s purely subjective. To conclude that logic is practically irrelevant to emotional constructs like happiness, compassion, and love appears like the author may be implying a false dichotomy (that one can only espouse logic or emotion, but not both). While it’s true that skeptics would not use emotion to evaluate science, to suggest that logic is irrelevant to happiness is another argument from ignorance. Just because he doesn’t understand it, does mean it is not possible. Read just about anything from Carl Sagan for more on happiness within reality, or ask a real skeptic.

Of course, skeptics may disagree with this assessment, but even that would require some original thought, which violates the beliefs of skeptics in the first place. If you’re an extreme skeptic, you can’t fathom the meaning of any of this because you have no consciousness and you don’t possess any original ideas whatsoever, according to your own Church of Logic. So if you’re perturbed by this essay because you’re a self-admitted skeptic, then don’t sweat it: Your negative emotion is just a side effect of the giant pinball Turing Machine in your head. You’ll get over it.

“Beliefs of skeptics” - if ever there was an oxymoron, this one is it. I guess I’m not a so-called “extreme skeptic”, because this makes perfect sense. It’s a very well-written fallacious appeal to other ways of knowing. I’m definitely not that extreme, because I wasn’t perturbed at all, in fact this essay kept my attention, and was very entertaining.

Everybody else, on the other hand, does exist, which is why we are all laughing so hard at the skeptics — the only group of people in the history of human civilization to vehemently argue for their own irrelevance, and then to prove it through pompous babble aimed not at any effort to discover real truth, but rather to protect their own fragile egos and hollow philosophical scaffolding.

Hey good for him, laughter from the Alt Med world seems pretty harmless and irrelevant.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. It’s a good thing, then, that extreme skeptics don’t believe in the mind at all — only in the brain, a physical organ they say merely creates the illusion of consciousness and has no ethereal existence whatsoever: No spirit, no soul, no mind. By their own definition, then, extreme skeptics are mindless, soulless walking water bags that are no more “alive” than the DNA sequence of a virus. Unfortunately, they still manage to spout words from time to time, probably due to some sort of linguistic reflex action, and annoy the rest of us who actually do have consciousness.

He’s right; believers can get pretty annoyed by the skeptics. It’s often much more comfortable for human beings to remain in denial, or seek communal reinforcement of beliefs, as a form a validation in place of understanding, or in the face of great challenge. It’s also a classic straw man argument.

So the next time a skeptic annoys you with blathering syllables that sound like arguments against alternative medicine, just remember: A chicken can still run with its head cut off, but that doesn’t mean it knows where it’s going. It’s only a reflex that appears to resemble conscious intention. Don’t mind it.

That’s it? A simple fallacious appeal to other ways of knowing? Alternative medicine should not be ignored, because skeptics are annoying or unemotional? There might be a better way of knowing, but it was not detailed, and no evidence was provided? Definitely not written for a skeptical audience AT ALL. I enjoyed reading it though. Thank you health ranger.

The next time a believer makes unproven claims for alternative medicine, just remember: A chicken can run with it’s head intact, that doesn’t mean it “knows” where it’s going.

————

[Edit/Erratum: 3May2006 - Changed title from S.C.A.M. to sCAM to reflect better accuracy in acknowledging the existence of legitimate research into Complementary and Alternative Medicine.  Changed first paragraph from "So-Called Alternative Medicine" to "so-called Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Thank you Abel PharmBoy. A few minor spelling corrections as well.] 

————

Important notices:

The contents of Mike Adams’s essay were reprinted here with permission from Truth Publishing - NewsTarget Network, who I must say, has a wonderful policy about reprint rights. These people have the “sharing the information” down pat.

It’s also important to note the following portion of the disclaimer from their website: ”Truth Publishing sells no health or nutritional products and earns no money from health product manufacturers or promoters. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only.”

Don’t forget, Mike Adams’s original article came from http://www.newstarget.com/.