Discussion:
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(too old to reply)
pautrey2
2008-11-15 17:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism


Story Highlights
McCarthy believes diet and vitamins helped her son recover from autism

Vaccines played a role in son's autism, she says

McCarthy and Jim Carrey think children being given too many vaccines,
too soon

By Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Special to CNN
April 4, 2008

Editor's note: Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are actors and parents
actively involved in autism-related causes. McCarthy is the author of
the book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism."

(CNN) -- In light of the recent Hannah Poling decision, in which the
federal court conceded that vaccines could have contributed to her
autism, we think the tide is finally turning in the direction of
parents like us who have been shouting concerns from our rooftops for
years.

Autism is a debilitating disorder, which according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is suffered by 1 in 150 kids, making
it more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined.

Recently, England and Ireland reported that autism is affecting one in
58 individuals.

Is it any wonder that autism has become many new parents' No. 1 fear?

We've met some of the most amazing moms and dads who are forging their
own path to prevention and recovery. When our son, Evan, was diagnosed
with autism we were lucky enough to benefit from their knowledge and
experience. Evan has been healed to a great extent by many
breakthroughs that, while perhaps not scientifically proven, have
definitely helped Evan and many other children who are recovering from
autism. Parents vs. scientists: Watch the latest test case »

There are some who wonder what we mean when we say "recovering" from
autism. They confuse the word recover with cure. While you may not be
able to cure an injury caused in a terrible car accident, you can
recover; you can regain many skills that you once lost. In the case of
autism, we think there are treatments that often bring about such
healing, so that the observable symptoms of the condition no longer
exist. Even though we may no longer see any symptoms of autism, we
can't say a child is "cured" because we do not know what they would
have been like had they never been injured.

We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free, casein-
free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-fungals
for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan's
neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments,
speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn
the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism. After we
implemented these therapies for one year, the state re-evaluated Evan
for further services. They spent five minutes with Evan and said,
"What happened? We've never seen a recovery like this." Watch Jenny
McCarthy talk about her son's autism »

Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism. When Evan meets doctors and
neurologists, to this day they tell us he was misdiagnosed -- that he
never had autism to begin with. It's as if they are wired to believe
that children can't recover from autism. Watch CDC chief on vaccines,
autism »

So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our
door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't
arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child
from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their
child's autism.

We think our health authorities don't want to open this can of worms,
so they don't even look or listen. While there is strong debate on
this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they
didn't treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine
injury. Read about latest fight over vaccines and autism

Many people aren't aware that in the 1980s our children received only
10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations,
most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could
it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit
engine then a means of prevention?

We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the
only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If
we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the
rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule,
reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients
that could be toxic to some children.

We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines
like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are
operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are
acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge
improbability.

Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and
autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered
as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for
alternative schedules, check out http://generationrescue.org.)

We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines,
but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the
ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being given too
many, too soon!

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the
writers.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/
Frank
2008-11-16 02:18:09 UTC
Permalink
"pautrey2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7cb894eb-75b8-4efd-becf-***@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Why do you spam this horseshit, you know little and understand nothing.
pautrey2
2008-11-16 02:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Why do you spam this horseshit, you know little and understand nothing.
Frank,
You're going to talk your way into
being banned from Google Groups.
Grow Up!

Paul
Frank
2008-11-16 05:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Why do you spam this horseshit, you know little and understand
nothing.
Frank,
You're going to talk your way into
being banned from Google Groups.
Grow Up!

Paul
=========================================================
Your hollow threats mean nothing to me. Your BS sucks, your hypocrisy
sticks out like a sore thumb and now you play snot nosed cop?

ROTFLMAO

You are one dumb MOFO! A redneck from Mississippi, near BX, want more
info you ignorant shithead?
pautrey2
2008-11-16 05:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Frank,
I want more. Waste your time.
Again, your time in Google Groups
is counting down. You can also talk
your way into legal problems.
You're a nut!

Paul
Post by pautrey2
Post by Frank
Why do you spam this horseshit, you know little and understand nothing.
Frank,
You're going to talk your way into
being banned from Google Groups.
Grow Up!
Paul
=========================================================
Your hollow threats mean nothing to me. Your BS sucks, your hypocrisy
sticks out like a sore thumb and now you play snot nosed cop?
ROTFLMAO
You are one dumb MOFO! A redneck from Mississippi, near BX, want more
info you ignorant shithead?
Frank
2008-11-16 05:40:52 UTC
Permalink
"pautrey2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:900d035f-2801-4e18-9322-***@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Frank,
I want more. Waste your time.
Again, your time in Google Groups
is counting down. You can also talk
your way into legal problems.
You're a nut!

Paul
=======================================================
Don't threaten me you dumb shit.

Stop your spamming, hypocrite
Mark Probert
2008-11-17 13:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Frank,
I want more. Waste your time.
Again, your time in Google Groups
is counting down.
GoogleGroups does not ban anyone. Is this more of you fascist anti-
free speech rhetoric? Seems that way.

You can also talk
Post by pautrey2
your way into legal problems.
How so? It is because you cannot stand the heat of the kitchen?
Post by pautrey2
You're a nut!
PKB

Paul
Post by pautrey2
Post by pautrey2
Post by Frank
Why do you spam this horseshit, you know little and understand nothing.
Frank,
You're going to talk your way into
being banned from Google Groups.
Grow Up!
Paul
=========================================================
Your hollow threats mean nothing to me. Your BS sucks, your hypocrisy
sticks out like a sore thumb and now you play snot nosed cop?
ROTFLMAO
You are one dumb MOFO! A redneck from Mississippi, near BX, want more
info you ignorant shithead?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Peter Bowditch
2008-11-17 20:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Post by Frank
Why do you spam this horseshit, you know little and understand nothing.
Frank,
You're going to talk your way into
being banned from Google Groups.
Grow Up!
Paul
Fuck Google Groups.

Now get me banned.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Muddle
2008-11-17 23:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
You're going to talk your way into
being banned from Google Groups.
Grow Up!
These groups have been around since long before Larry Page and Sergey Brin
were pissing in their diapers. Google doesn't own them, never has and never
will. This is Usenet not Google Groups. Google Groups is but one way to
access them and it's not the preferred way to do so, by those that have been
here long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USENET

That said, why do dolts post crap science in Usenet news groups, where it
never has been and never will be well received. It's like a reoccurring
rash! Whatever it is your selling, you'd be better off finding parents of
the newly diagnosed to scam than trying to peddle your wares here, nobody in
the alt.support.autism Usenet news group is going to buy it.

Thought I'd pop in and see what's going on. Same shit, different day, huh.
How bout a discussion of Pascal's Wager, I'm tired of Oscams Razor.
Well I'm off to see the wizard.
Terry Jones
2008-11-18 00:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Muddle
How bout a discussion of Pascal's Wager, I'm tired of Oscams Razor.
It presents a false option (assuming that sincerity is relevant, not
just using the right words and rituals) in that one cannot simply
choose to believe.

And a false dilemma, in that its not simply *either* belief or
disbelief, but (at least according to some), choosing the right faith
from multiple options. So the odds against getting it right are pretty
poor.
--
Terry
Muddle
2008-11-18 02:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
Post by Muddle
How bout a discussion of Pascal's Wager, I'm tired of Oscams Razor.
It presents a false option (assuming that sincerity is relevant, not
just using the right words and rituals) in that one cannot simply
choose to believe.
And a false dilemma, in that its not simply *either* belief or
disbelief, but (at least according to some), choosing the right faith
from multiple options. So the odds against getting it right are pretty
poor.
--
Terry
lol, it's a crap shoot, that's for sure ;-)
Stephen Horne
2008-11-18 04:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
Post by Muddle
How bout a discussion of Pascal's Wager, I'm tired of Oscams Razor.
So don't read it. At this point, both me and Bob are just squabbling
over who gets the last word in anyway ;-)
Post by Terry Jones
It presents a false option (assuming that sincerity is relevant, not
just using the right words and rituals) in that one cannot simply
choose to believe.
I agree. But when I talked about choice, it wasn't really "shall I do
this or shall I do that" choosing. The motivation for your "choice" of
assumption may mean that it isn't a true choice, but it doesn't mean
it isn't an assumption.
Post by Terry Jones
And a false dilemma, in that its not simply *either* belief or
disbelief, but (at least according to some), choosing the right faith
from multiple options. So the odds against getting it right are pretty
poor.
It doesn't matter how wide the choice is - there's still a choice. I
never said there's only two - I merely focussed on the two most
relevant blanket terms ("science" itself is, at least in practice, a
collection of belief systems - different theories, some mutually
inconsistent, etc). If you want to reduce that to probability, I'd
simply point out that the odds of the correct belief being a religious
belief are pretty good - precisely because there's a lot of different
religious belief systems.

But argument by probability is itself invalid unless you have some way
to determine the probabilities. Classification and counting isn't
enough.
Terry Jones
2008-11-18 10:32:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:22:58 +0000, Stephen Horne
Post by Stephen Horne
Post by Terry Jones
And a false dilemma, in that its not simply *either* belief or
disbelief, but (at least according to some), choosing the right faith
from multiple options. So the odds against getting it right are pretty
poor.
It doesn't matter how wide the choice is - there's still a choice. I
never said there's only two - I merely focussed on the two most
relevant blanket terms ("science" itself is, at least in practice, a
collection of belief systems - different theories, some mutually
inconsistent, etc).
This was in response to Muddle's post about Pascal's wager. It was he
[Pascal] who proposed two options.
Post by Stephen Horne
If you want to reduce that to probability, I'd
simply point out that the odds of the correct belief being a religious
belief are pretty good - precisely because there's a lot of different
religious belief systems.
Only if you consider the raw numbers of theories - but what are their
individual probabilities?

And remember that some of them are mutually exclusive ("we alone know
the truth, and everybody else has got it wrong").
--
Terry
Stephen Horne
2008-11-19 05:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
This was in response to Muddle's post about Pascal's wager. It was he
[Pascal] who proposed two options.
Ah well - Pascals wager is problematic in another sense too. If you
were a God, how would you feel about people "believing" just in case?

Can God be so easily manipulated, IOW?
Terry Jones
2008-11-19 09:15:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:29:23 +0000, Stephen Horne
Post by Stephen Horne
Post by Terry Jones
This was in response to Muddle's post about Pascal's wager. It was he
[Pascal] who proposed two options.
Ah well - Pascals wager is problematic in another sense too. If you
were a God, how would you feel about people "believing" just in case?
Yes, that was my point about sincerity and choosing to "believe".
Post by Stephen Horne
Can God be so easily manipulated, IOW?
Well if you look at the real world and the claimed words, god(s) seem
far from being omnicompetent or all knowing - and often poor and
ambiguous communicators.

From a purely evidential perspective, the pantheistic model with
multiple "powers", fallible and having different (& sometimes
conflicting) agendas, seems a better fit than a coherent single deity.
--
Terry
pumpkin
2008-11-18 06:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Occam
Post by Terry Jones
Post by Muddle
How bout a discussion of Pascal's Wager, I'm tired of Oscams Razor.
It presents a false option (assuming that sincerity is relevant, not
just using the right words and rituals) in that one cannot simply
choose to believe.
And a false dilemma, in that its not simply *either* belief or
disbelief, but (at least according to some), choosing the right faith
from multiple options. So the odds against getting it right are pretty
poor.
--
Terry
pumpkin
2008-11-16 06:08:50 UTC
Permalink
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.


"pautrey2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7cb894eb-75b8-4efd-becf-***@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism


Story Highlights
McCarthy believes diet and vitamins helped her son recover from autism

Vaccines played a role in son's autism, she says

McCarthy and Jim Carrey think children being given too many vaccines,
too soon

By Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Special to CNN
April 4, 2008

Editor's note: Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are actors and parents
actively involved in autism-related causes. McCarthy is the author of
the book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism."

(CNN) -- In light of the recent Hannah Poling decision, in which the
federal court conceded that vaccines could have contributed to her
autism, we think the tide is finally turning in the direction of
parents like us who have been shouting concerns from our rooftops for
years.

Autism is a debilitating disorder, which according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is suffered by 1 in 150 kids, making
it more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined.

Recently, England and Ireland reported that autism is affecting one in
58 individuals.

Is it any wonder that autism has become many new parents' No. 1 fear?

We've met some of the most amazing moms and dads who are forging their
own path to prevention and recovery. When our son, Evan, was diagnosed
with autism we were lucky enough to benefit from their knowledge and
experience. Evan has been healed to a great extent by many
breakthroughs that, while perhaps not scientifically proven, have
definitely helped Evan and many other children who are recovering from
autism. Parents vs. scientists: Watch the latest test case »

There are some who wonder what we mean when we say "recovering" from
autism. They confuse the word recover with cure. While you may not be
able to cure an injury caused in a terrible car accident, you can
recover; you can regain many skills that you once lost. In the case of
autism, we think there are treatments that often bring about such
healing, so that the observable symptoms of the condition no longer
exist. Even though we may no longer see any symptoms of autism, we
can't say a child is "cured" because we do not know what they would
have been like had they never been injured.

We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free, casein-
free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-fungals
for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan's
neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments,
speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn
the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism. After we
implemented these therapies for one year, the state re-evaluated Evan
for further services. They spent five minutes with Evan and said,
"What happened? We've never seen a recovery like this." Watch Jenny
McCarthy talk about her son's autism »

Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism. When Evan meets doctors and
neurologists, to this day they tell us he was misdiagnosed -- that he
never had autism to begin with. It's as if they are wired to believe
that children can't recover from autism. Watch CDC chief on vaccines,
autism »

So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our
door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't
arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child
from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their
child's autism.

We think our health authorities don't want to open this can of worms,
so they don't even look or listen. While there is strong debate on
this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they
didn't treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine
injury. Read about latest fight over vaccines and autism

Many people aren't aware that in the 1980s our children received only
10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations,
most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could
it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit
engine then a means of prevention?

We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the
only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If
we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the
rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule,
reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients
that could be toxic to some children.

We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines
like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are
operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are
acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge
improbability.

Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and
autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered
as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for
alternative schedules, check out http://generationrescue.org.)

We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines,
but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the
ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being given too
many, too soon!

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the
writers.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/
pautrey2
2008-11-16 13:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
Story Highlights
McCarthy believes diet and vitamins helped her son recover from autism
Vaccines played a role in son's autism, she says
McCarthy and Jim Carrey think children being given too many vaccines,
too soon
By Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Special to CNN
April 4, 2008
Editor's note: Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are actors and parents
actively involved in autism-related causes. McCarthy is the author of
the book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism."
(CNN) -- In light of the recent Hannah Poling decision, in which the
federal court conceded that vaccines could have contributed to her
autism, we think the tide is finally turning in the direction of
parents like us who have been shouting concerns from our rooftops for
years.
Autism is a debilitating disorder, which according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is suffered by 1 in 150 kids, making
it more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined.
Recently, England and Ireland reported that autism is affecting one in
58 individuals.
Is it any wonder that autism has become many new parents' No. 1 fear?
We've met some of the most amazing moms and dads who are forging their
own path to prevention and recovery. When our son, Evan, was diagnosed
with autism we were lucky enough to benefit from their knowledge and
experience. Evan has been healed to a great extent by many
breakthroughs that, while perhaps not scientifically proven, have
definitely helped Evan and many other children who are recovering from
autism. Parents vs. scientists: Watch the latest test case »
There are some who wonder what we mean when we say "recovering" from
autism. They confuse the word recover with cure. While you may not be
able to cure an injury caused in a terrible car accident, you can
recover; you can regain many skills that you once lost. In the case of
autism, we think there are treatments that often bring about such
healing, so that the observable symptoms of the condition no longer
exist. Even though we may no longer see any symptoms of autism, we
can't say a child is "cured" because we do not know what they would
have been like had they never been injured.
We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free, casein-
free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-fungals
for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan's
neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments,
speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn
the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism. After we
implemented these therapies for one year, the state re-evaluated Evan
for further services. They spent five minutes with Evan and said,
"What happened? We've never seen a recovery like this." Watch Jenny
McCarthy talk about her son's autism »
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism. When Evan meets doctors and
neurologists, to this day they tell us he was misdiagnosed -- that he
never had autism to begin with. It's as if they are wired to believe
that children can't recover from autism. Watch CDC chief on vaccines,
autism »
So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our
door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't
arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child
from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their
child's autism.
We think our health authorities don't want to open this can of worms,
so they don't even look or listen. While there is strong debate on
this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they
didn't treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine
injury. Read about latest fight over vaccines and autism
Many people aren't aware that in the 1980s our children received only
10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations,
most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could
it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit
engine then a means of prevention?
We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the
only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If
we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the
rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule,
reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients
that could be toxic to some children.
We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines
like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are
operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are
acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge
improbability.
Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and
autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered
as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for
alternative schedules, check outhttp://generationrescue.org.)
We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines,
but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the
ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being given too
many, too soon!
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the
writers.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/
Pumpkin,
I respect your opinion,
but what makes you an authority?

Paul
pumpkin
2008-11-16 20:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Oh, I didn't realize that it was incumbent on me to say, also, "I don't
consider myself an authority," simply because I discount Ms. McCarthy.
Dismissing someone means you anoint yourself? huh?

But because you brought it up, I wouldn't feel nervous claiming to know more
about autism than McCarthy does, no, not a bit.

"I respect your opinion" is never a sincere remark, in my opinion, LOL!
Post by pumpkin
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
Story Highlights
McCarthy believes diet and vitamins helped her son recover from autism
Vaccines played a role in son's autism, she says
McCarthy and Jim Carrey think children being given too many vaccines,
too soon
By Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Special to CNN
April 4, 2008
Editor's note: Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are actors and parents
actively involved in autism-related causes. McCarthy is the author of
the book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism."
(CNN) -- In light of the recent Hannah Poling decision, in which the
federal court conceded that vaccines could have contributed to her
autism, we think the tide is finally turning in the direction of
parents like us who have been shouting concerns from our rooftops for
years.
Autism is a debilitating disorder, which according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is suffered by 1 in 150 kids, making
it more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined.
Recently, England and Ireland reported that autism is affecting one in
58 individuals.
Is it any wonder that autism has become many new parents' No. 1 fear?
We've met some of the most amazing moms and dads who are forging their
own path to prevention and recovery. When our son, Evan, was diagnosed
with autism we were lucky enough to benefit from their knowledge and
experience. Evan has been healed to a great extent by many
breakthroughs that, while perhaps not scientifically proven, have
definitely helped Evan and many other children who are recovering from
autism. Parents vs. scientists: Watch the latest test case »
There are some who wonder what we mean when we say "recovering" from
autism. They confuse the word recover with cure. While you may not be
able to cure an injury caused in a terrible car accident, you can
recover; you can regain many skills that you once lost. In the case of
autism, we think there are treatments that often bring about such
healing, so that the observable symptoms of the condition no longer
exist. Even though we may no longer see any symptoms of autism, we
can't say a child is "cured" because we do not know what they would
have been like had they never been injured.
We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free, casein-
free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-fungals
for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan's
neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments,
speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn
the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism. After we
implemented these therapies for one year, the state re-evaluated Evan
for further services. They spent five minutes with Evan and said,
"What happened? We've never seen a recovery like this." Watch Jenny
McCarthy talk about her son's autism »
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism. When Evan meets doctors and
neurologists, to this day they tell us he was misdiagnosed -- that he
never had autism to begin with. It's as if they are wired to believe
that children can't recover from autism. Watch CDC chief on vaccines,
autism »
So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our
door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't
arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child
from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their
child's autism.
We think our health authorities don't want to open this can of worms,
so they don't even look or listen. While there is strong debate on
this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they
didn't treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine
injury. Read about latest fight over vaccines and autism
Many people aren't aware that in the 1980s our children received only
10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations,
most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could
it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit
engine then a means of prevention?
We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the
only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If
we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the
rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule,
reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients
that could be toxic to some children.
We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines
like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are
operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are
acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge
improbability.
Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and
autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered
as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for
alternative schedules, check outhttp://generationrescue.org.)
We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines,
but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the
ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being given too
many, too soon!
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the
writers.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/
Pumpkin,
I respect your opinion,
but what makes you an authority?

Paul
pautrey2
2008-11-16 22:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
Oh, I didn't realize that it was incumbent on me to say, also, "I don't
consider myself an authority," simply because I discount Ms. McCarthy.
Dismissing someone means you anoint yourself? huh?
But because you brought it up, I wouldn't feel nervous claiming to know more
about autism than McCarthy does, no, not a bit.
Post by pumpkin
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
Story Highlights
McCarthy believes diet and vitamins helped her son recover from autism
Vaccines played a role in son's autism, she says
McCarthy and Jim Carrey think children being given too many vaccines,
too soon
By Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Special to CNN
April 4, 2008
Editor's note: Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are actors and parents
actively involved in autism-related causes. McCarthy is the author of
the book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism."
(CNN) -- In light of the recent Hannah Poling decision, in which the
federal court conceded that vaccines could have contributed to her
autism, we think the tide is finally turning in the direction of
parents like us who have been shouting concerns from our rooftops for
years.
Autism is a debilitating disorder, which according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is suffered by 1 in 150 kids, making
it more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined.
Recently, England and Ireland reported that autism is affecting one in
58 individuals.
Is it any wonder that autism has become many new parents' No. 1 fear?
We've met some of the most amazing moms and dads who are forging their
own path to prevention and recovery. When our son, Evan, was diagnosed
with autism we were lucky enough to benefit from their knowledge and
experience. Evan has been healed to a great extent by many
breakthroughs that, while perhaps not scientifically proven, have
definitely helped Evan and many other children who are recovering from
autism. Parents vs. scientists: Watch the latest test case »
There are some who wonder what we mean when we say "recovering" from
autism. They confuse the word recover with cure. While you may not be
able to cure an injury caused in a terrible car accident, you can
recover; you can regain many skills that you once lost. In the case of
autism, we think there are treatments that often bring about such
healing, so that the observable symptoms of the condition no longer
exist. Even though we may no longer see any symptoms of autism, we
can't say a child is "cured" because we do not know what they would
have been like had they never been injured.
We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free, casein-
free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-fungals
for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan's
neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments,
speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn
the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism. After we
implemented these therapies for one year, the state re-evaluated Evan
for further services. They spent five minutes with Evan and said,
"What happened? We've never seen a recovery like this." Watch Jenny
McCarthy talk about her son's autism »
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism. When Evan meets doctors and
neurologists, to this day they tell us he was misdiagnosed -- that he
never had autism to begin with. It's as if they are wired to believe
that children can't recover from autism. Watch CDC chief on vaccines,
autism »
So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our
door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't
arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child
from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their
child's autism.
We think our health authorities don't want to open this can of worms,
so they don't even look or listen. While there is strong debate on
this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they
didn't treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine
injury. Read about latest fight over vaccines and autism
Many people aren't aware that in the 1980s our children received only
10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations,
most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could
it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit
engine then a means of prevention?
We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the
only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If
we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the
rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule,
reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients
that could be toxic to some children.
We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines
like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are
operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are
acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge
improbability.
Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and
autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered
as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for
alternative schedules, check outhttp://generationrescue.org.)
We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines,
but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the
ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being given too
many, too soon!
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the
writers.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/
Pumpkin,
I respect your opinion,
but what makes you an authority?
Paul- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism? What's your
experience with autism? My youngest
brother 'had' autism.

Paul
Raving
2008-11-16 23:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism? What's your
experience with autism? My youngest
brother 'had' autism.
Paul
And thus your youngest brother figured out how to overcome the
limitations of autistic type thinking and make advantage of such in a
productive, effective, fulfilling sense. Many people who are autistic
or employ other methods of going about things are not so fortuitous.
That is a major and inspiring accomplishment, Paul. :)
Bob Badour
2008-11-17 00:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
Raving
2008-11-17 02:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
Those who are made by the way of ADD, PDD, OCD, BPD, etc may endure
intense, protracted belittlement for having such natural and essential
temperament. Some people seem to re-act by denying, dismissing,
denouncing, disavowing and/or hating the essential quality which they
have about themselves. They seek to join with their critics and cure
their 'defective' affliction.

It isn't easy to accept and 'like' one's self and a tragedy that self-
fulfillment can be so hard to achieve.
pautrey2
2008-11-17 02:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
Those who are made by the way of ADD, PDD, OCD, BPD, etc may endure
intense, protracted belittlement for having such natural and essential
temperament.  Some people seem to re-act by denying, dismissing,
denouncing, disavowing and/or hating the essential quality which they
have about themselves. They seek to join with their critics and cure
their 'defective' affliction.
It isn't easy to accept and 'like' one's self and a tragedy that self-
fulfillment can be so hard to achieve.
Psychobabble!
If you limit yourself,
you stay limited!
Raving
2008-11-17 03:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
Those who are made by the way of ADD, PDD, OCD, BPD, etc may endure
intense, protracted belittlement for having such natural and essential
temperament. Some people seem to re-act by denying, dismissing,
denouncing, disavowing and/or hating the essential quality which they
have about themselves. They seek to join with their critics and cure
their 'defective' affliction.
It isn't easy to accept and 'like' one's self and a tragedy that self-
fulfillment can be so hard to achieve.
Psychobabble!
If you limit yourself,
you stay limited!
Wizard of Oz
Achilles heel.

Who a person "*is*" is set out by that which (de)limits the person.
A person is insensitive in all other regards.

Not psychobabble. Rather, it is 'descriptive' babble.

"Cogito, ergo sum". Put otherwise,....
... people are both defined and constrained by what they "think",...
... by the manner which they describe themselves.
pautrey2
2008-11-17 04:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
Not psychobabble. Rather, it is 'descriptive' babble.
Post by pautrey2
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
Those who are made by the way of ADD, PDD, OCD, BPD, etc may endure
intense, protracted belittlement for having such natural and essential
temperament.  Some people seem to re-act by denying, dismissing,
denouncing, disavowing and/or hating the essential quality which they
have about themselves. They seek to join with their critics and cure
their 'defective' affliction.
It isn't easy to accept and 'like' one's self and a tragedy that self-
fulfillment can be so hard to achieve.
Psychobabble!
If you limit yourself,
you stay limited!
Wizard of Oz
Achilles heel.
Who a person "*is*" is set out by that which (de)limits the person.
   A person is insensitive in all other regards.
Not  psychobabble. Rather, it is 'descriptive' babble.
"Cogito, ergo sum". Put otherwise,....
  ... people are both defined and constrained by what they "think",...
   ...  by the manner which they describe themselves.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
At least you admit your comments are 'babble'.
You continuously discredit yourself.
Raving
2008-11-17 05:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Post by Raving
Not psychobabble. Rather, it is 'descriptive' babble.
Post by pautrey2
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
Those who are made by the way of ADD, PDD, OCD, BPD, etc may endure
intense, protracted belittlement for having such natural and essential
temperament. Some people seem to re-act by denying, dismissing,
denouncing, disavowing and/or hating the essential quality which they
have about themselves. They seek to join with their critics and cure
their 'defective' affliction.
It isn't easy to accept and 'like' one's self and a tragedy that self-
fulfillment can be so hard to achieve.
Psychobabble!
If you limit yourself,
you stay limited!
Wizard of Oz
Achilles heel.
Who a person "*is*" is set out by that which (de)limits the person.
A person is insensitive in all other regards.
Not psychobabble. Rather, it is 'descriptive' babble.
"Cogito, ergo sum". Put otherwise,....
... people are both defined and constrained by what they "think",...
... by the manner which they describe themselves.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
At least you admit your comments are 'babble'.
You continuously discredit yourself.
Agreed in both regards.

Confusion and incoherence are inconveniences which are attendant with
working at the 'foundations of description'. Clarity and insight are
achieved by engaging in and surviving ungainly, hard fought battles.
Raving
2008-11-17 17:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
--->"her delusions in now way diminishes the delusion."<---

Your description of 'delusion' amazes me.

I misconstrued the inference the first time round, yet each occasion
that I revisit and refresh that newly gained insight, my surprise is
regenerated.

As inferences tend to implode into the focus and thus are forgotten, I
repeatedly re-visit this realization in the hope that it will make a
more indelible impression upon me.

Insight:

Your meaning of 'delusion' seems to be strongly shaped by 'autistic'
thought. What you mean by it is something which I would consider to be
very precise, very constant, and very specific.

(Aside: In retrospect, no surprise there, eh.)

My 'read' of your meaning of 'delusion' is as if the concept is a
scalar measure with zero representing absence of 'delusion' and some
large, sky-is-the-limit value for 'heavy delusion'. In the context of
how it applies to McCarthy, there is the implicit suggestion that the
'delusion' and it's scalar value is constant and enduring.

I suppose the main significance here is that 'delusion' is a scalar
concept, that it either is or isn't present and if 'delusion' is so
present then there is a quantitative sense for the degree or amount of
the stuff.

I am motivated to say that your usage is shaped by 'autistic' thought
because I presume that autistic reality is relatively distortion/
delusion free. Establishing and maintaining 'continuity' (of
relationship) is a big deal for an autistic style thinker.

I view your usage of 'delusion' as being that 'delusion' represents
some serious stress, distortion or tear in the fabric of the
continuity to things.

(more to be added shortly.)
Bob Badour
2008-11-17 18:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
--->"her delusions in now way diminishes the delusion."<---
Your description of 'delusion' amazes me.
I misconstrued the inference the first time round, yet each occasion
that I revisit and refresh that newly gained insight, my surprise is
regenerated.
As inferences tend to implode into the focus and thus are forgotten, I
repeatedly re-visit this realization in the hope that it will make a
more indelible impression upon me.
Your meaning of 'delusion' seems to be strongly shaped by 'autistic'
thought. What you mean by it is something which I would consider to be
very precise, very constant, and very specific.
(Aside: In retrospect, no surprise there, eh.)
My 'read' of your meaning of 'delusion' is as if the concept is a
scalar measure with zero representing absence of 'delusion' and some
large, sky-is-the-limit value for 'heavy delusion'. In the context of
how it applies to McCarthy, there is the implicit suggestion that the
'delusion' and it's scalar value is constant and enduring.
I suppose the main significance here is that 'delusion' is a scalar
concept, that it either is or isn't present and if 'delusion' is so
present then there is a quantitative sense for the degree or amount of
the stuff.
I am motivated to say that your usage is shaped by 'autistic' thought
because I presume that autistic reality is relatively distortion/
delusion free. Establishing and maintaining 'continuity' (of
relationship) is a big deal for an autistic style thinker.
I view your usage of 'delusion' as being that 'delusion' represents
some serious stress, distortion or tear in the fabric of the
continuity to things.
(more to be added shortly.)
No, actually. Delusion is scalar. We are all prone to delusion --
autistics included. Some are more deluded than others. I respectfully
suggest you delude yourself a little when you believe you can read my
mind. McCarthy is very prone to delusion and prone to publicizing her
delusions.

For example, she deluded herself when she wrote a book about how perfect
her baby was, and she publicized that delusion doing live appearances
promoting that book even while she knew her son was having seizures.
According to her, one seizure stopped his heart.

She has since deluded herself into believing she cured her son of
autism. She has deluded herself into believing vaccines cause autism.
She now publicizes these delusions doing live appearances. She lied in
the past about her son's condition. Why should we believe a word she says?

There are a number of possibilities. One possibility is her son has a
seizure disorder that causes autism-like symptoms. It is even possible
that her interventions have cured or controlled the seizure disorder, in
which case the autism-like symptoms might be gone forever never to
return. It is also possible that her son's seizure disorder was a
temporary condition he simply outgrew.

It is also possible that her son has autism and still does. It's not
like McCarthy has a documented history of honesty when promoting her
books--quite the opposite in fact. It is possible the seizure disorder
was comorbid and that controlling the seizure disorder reduced stress on
her son diminishing his need for autistic stress coping mechanisms.

I have a friend whose daughter's meltdowns and stimming diminished
greatly after altering her diet. Even with all the best interventions
money can buy, she is still very much an autistic child. Having received
all the treatment McCarthy's son has and even more, she remains uncured.

McCarthy is deluded--clearly deluded--when she makes the broad sweeping
claims she does. I find her message not only deluded but offensive. Her
message is a message of bigotry, prejudice and judgment. In her world,
autism is wrong, and autistics are lesser people.

She is not a good person. She is evil. She harms her son. She harms
autistics in general. She gives men erections and sells books by
pandering to widespread biases and prejudices in society. I don't see
what's so great about either accomplishment.
Raving
2008-11-17 19:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
--->"her delusions in now way diminishes the delusion."<---
Your description of 'delusion' amazes me.
I misconstrued the inference the first time round, yet each occasion
that I revisit and refresh that newly gained insight, my surprise is
regenerated.
As inferences tend to implode into the focus and thus are forgotten, I
repeatedly re-visit this realization in the hope that it will make a
more indelible impression upon me.
Your meaning of 'delusion' seems to be strongly shaped by 'autistic'
thought. What you mean by it is something which I would consider to be
very precise, very constant, and very specific.
(Aside: In retrospect, no surprise there, eh.)
My 'read' of your meaning of 'delusion' is as if the concept is a
scalar measure with zero representing absence of 'delusion' and some
large, sky-is-the-limit value for 'heavy delusion'. In the context of
how it applies to McCarthy, there is the implicit suggestion that the
'delusion' and it's scalar value is constant and enduring.
I suppose the main significance here is that 'delusion' is a scalar
concept, that it either is or isn't present and if 'delusion' is so
present then there is a quantitative sense for the degree or amount of
the stuff.
I am motivated to say that your usage is shaped by 'autistic' thought
because I presume that autistic reality is relatively distortion/
delusion free. Establishing and maintaining 'continuity' (of
relationship) is a big deal for an autistic style thinker.
I view your usage of 'delusion' as being that 'delusion' represents
some serious stress, distortion or tear in the fabric of the
continuity to things.
(more to be added shortly.)
Yes, Thank you. I very much appreciate your response and can clearly
see that I am on track here.

I apologize for my brevity and roughly hewn response herein. In
stopping, listening and exploring too much, I risk losing sight of my
intended further development of this discussion. I believe that it
most worthwhile to carry it further forward. Nevertheless, I say the
following as quickly and succinctly as is possible for me. ...
No, actually. Delusion is scalar....
=====>"Delusion is scalar"

This is of high value importance to me. It provides me with strong
indication that I am on to a meaningful track with this.

Speaking for myself personally more so than as 'typical NT' ...
=====>"Delusion is vector"

I am using the vector/scalar description loosely herein. I sense it as
having a touchy, feely, heuristic appropriateness. Although there are
strong reasons for it being that way, for myself, at this current
moment, at any rate, a more concrete inspection leads to a collapse of
confusion. It is not necessary to go there now for the further
development of this track.

When I hear you say that "Delusion is scalar" and my intuited reply
that "Delusion is vector", I strongly presume that you won't know what
I mean by ... "Delusion is vector".

*PLEASE DO NOT* try to understand what I intend by "Delusion is
vector". I strongly and perhaps erroneously presuppose my meaning in
saying "such". At least, I presuppose such a thing on the basis that I
myself find it easy to discern a feasible inference. I know we are
different and I don't wish this to fall into a confusion of
'sameness'.

Having claimed that for me .... "Delusion is vector", it is not
possible for me at this time to clearly elaborate, very, very
explicitly as to what I mean by "such". The elaboration requires an
ordinary but very specific type of description. For several weeks, I
have been edging up in my mind, the realization of this crucial
fragment of explanation. The fragment is pregnant and is immanent of
being given concrete expression. I must leave the CONCLUSION of this
track open until I have that descriptive fragment available for my
use.

I intend to further this track of consideration with other fragments
of description. The aforementioned fragment is only required for it's
completion. Sorry.
.... We are all prone to delusion --
autistics included. Some are more deluded than others. ...
Yes.
I respectfully suggest you delude yourself a little when you believe
you can read my mind. ....
I have a knack for seeing the 'emphasis'. Reading-a-mind is a concept
which might have many connotations. What I mean by reading-a-mind is
something which is exceedingly ordinary and underwhelming. Rather than
me claim that I can read-a-person's-mind, how about I say that I have
a knack of ... seeing a person's point-of-view ... catching a person's
drift ... picking out where a person is coming from.

That pretty much sums up my ability. It is hard enough for me to do as
it is. It doesn't get any fancier than that.

(BTW & FWIW, I have not picked out your POV. I haven't gone looking
for it either. Whether I am "really-very-good" or "piddly-mediocre"at
this mind reading, party trick, it is nevertheless a rather subtle,
hard and hit-or-miss sort of thing for me to do.)

What I have managed to 'pick out' with some degree of assurance and
clarity is what you, and I presume other autistics infer by 'Delusion/
distortion'. At the moment, I do not make any distinction between
{Delusion, Distortion}. For me, at the moment,the crudeness of this
seems sufficient for the intended purpose.
McCarthy is very prone to delusion and prone to publicizing her delusions.
For example, she deluded herself when she wrote a book about how perfect
her baby was, and she publicized that delusion doing live appearances
promoting that book even while she knew her son was having seizures.
According to her, one seizure stopped his heart.
She has since deluded herself into believing she cured her son of
autism. She has deluded herself into believing vaccines cause autism.
She now publicizes these delusions doing live appearances. She lied in
the past about her son's condition. Why should we believe a word she says?
There are a number of possibilities. One possibility is her son has a
seizure disorder that causes autism-like symptoms. It is even possible
that her interventions have cured or controlled the seizure disorder, in
which case the autism-like symptoms might be gone forever never to
return. It is also possible that her son's seizure disorder was a
temporary condition he simply outgrew.
It is also possible that her son has autism and still does. It's not
like McCarthy has a documented history of honesty when promoting her
books--quite the opposite in fact. It is possible the seizure disorder
was comorbid and that controlling the seizure disorder reduced stress on
her son diminishing his need for autistic stress coping mechanisms.
I have a friend whose daughter's meltdowns and stimming diminished
greatly after altering her diet. Even with all the best interventions
money can buy, she is still very much an autistic child. Having received
all the treatment McCarthy's son has and even more, she remains uncured.
McCarthy is deluded--clearly deluded--when she makes the broad sweeping
claims she does. I find her message not only deluded but offensive. Her
message is a message of bigotry, prejudice and judgment. In her world,
autism is wrong, and autistics are lesser people.
She is not a good person. She is evil. She harms her son. She harms
autistics in general. She gives men erections and sells books by
pandering to widespread biases and prejudices in society. I don't see
what's so great about either accomplishment.
Having stated what I have already done so earlier, I can now proceed
to say that I can TRACK, AGREE WITH and ACCEPT all of your various
clarifications.

I perceive them as distinct, individual 'emphases' and accept and
accommodate them as such. That is how I go about doing things.

I apologize for what feels to me like a stilted, awkward writing style
herein. I hope that you are able to follow me.

(To be continued as before your response.)
Bob Badour
2008-11-17 20:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
--->"her delusions in now way diminishes the delusion."<---
Your description of 'delusion' amazes me.
I misconstrued the inference the first time round, yet each occasion
that I revisit and refresh that newly gained insight, my surprise is
regenerated.
As inferences tend to implode into the focus and thus are forgotten, I
repeatedly re-visit this realization in the hope that it will make a
more indelible impression upon me.
Your meaning of 'delusion' seems to be strongly shaped by 'autistic'
thought. What you mean by it is something which I would consider to be
very precise, very constant, and very specific.
(Aside: In retrospect, no surprise there, eh.)
My 'read' of your meaning of 'delusion' is as if the concept is a
scalar measure with zero representing absence of 'delusion' and some
large, sky-is-the-limit value for 'heavy delusion'. In the context of
how it applies to McCarthy, there is the implicit suggestion that the
'delusion' and it's scalar value is constant and enduring.
I suppose the main significance here is that 'delusion' is a scalar
concept, that it either is or isn't present and if 'delusion' is so
present then there is a quantitative sense for the degree or amount of
the stuff.
I am motivated to say that your usage is shaped by 'autistic' thought
because I presume that autistic reality is relatively distortion/
delusion free. Establishing and maintaining 'continuity' (of
relationship) is a big deal for an autistic style thinker.
I view your usage of 'delusion' as being that 'delusion' represents
some serious stress, distortion or tear in the fabric of the
continuity to things.
(more to be added shortly.)
Yes, Thank you. I very much appreciate your response and can clearly
see that I am on track here.
I apologize for my brevity and roughly hewn response herein. In
stopping, listening and exploring too much, I risk losing sight of my
intended further development of this discussion. I believe that it
most worthwhile to carry it further forward. Nevertheless, I say the
following as quickly and succinctly as is possible for me. ...
No, actually. Delusion is scalar....
=====>"Delusion is scalar"
This is of high value importance to me. It provides me with strong
indication that I am on to a meaningful track with this.
Speaking for myself personally more so than as 'typical NT' ...
=====>"Delusion is vector"
In the sense that different people are deluded in different ways, yes, I
agree. Delusion is vector. People are also deluded in different amounts,
which is scalar. I find nothing surprising that it would have both
magnitude and direction.
Post by Raving
I am using the vector/scalar description loosely herein. I sense it as
having a touchy, feely, heuristic appropriateness. Although there are
strong reasons for it being that way, for myself, at this current
moment, at any rate, a more concrete inspection leads to a collapse of
confusion. It is not necessary to go there now for the further
development of this track.
When I hear you say that "Delusion is scalar" and my intuited reply
that "Delusion is vector", I strongly presume that you won't know what
I mean by ... "Delusion is vector".
I don't pretend to read minds -- especially yours! :) However, the terms
scalar and vector have meanings in a mathematical sense. When I ascribe
those meanings to the words, your statements seem to make some sense
even if I find the observations unsurprising and don't seem to find them
as remarkable as you do.
Post by Raving
*PLEASE DO NOT* try to understand what I intend by "Delusion is
vector".
With all due respect, if all you want to do is send words out into the
universe without communicating anything, you can do so without directing
them at this newsgroup. Otherwise, by sending them here where we can see
them, you implicitly ask all of use to try to understand them.

<snip>
Post by Raving
I must leave the CONCLUSION of this
track open until I have that descriptive fragment available for my
use.
Good luck with that.
Post by Raving
I intend to further this track of consideration with other fragments
of description. The aforementioned fragment is only required for it's
completion. Sorry.
.... We are all prone to delusion --
autistics included. Some are more deluded than others. ...
Yes.
I respectfully suggest you delude yourself a little when you believe
you can read my mind. ....
I have a knack for seeing the 'emphasis'. Reading-a-mind is a concept
which might have many connotations. What I mean by reading-a-mind is
something which is exceedingly ordinary and underwhelming. Rather than
me claim that I can read-a-person's-mind, how about I say that I have
a knack of ... seeing a person's point-of-view ... catching a person's
drift ... picking out where a person is coming from.
In this case, I respectfully reiterate you delude yourself a little when
you believe that. I have no sense that you see my point of view at all
or that you catch my drift.
Post by Raving
That pretty much sums up my ability. It is hard enough for me to do as
it is. It doesn't get any fancier than that.
(BTW & FWIW, I have not picked out your POV. I haven't gone looking
for it either. Whether I am "really-very-good" or "piddly-mediocre"at
this mind reading, party trick, it is nevertheless a rather subtle,
hard and hit-or-miss sort of thing for me to do.)
What I have managed to 'pick out' with some degree of assurance and
clarity is what you, and I presume other autistics infer by 'Delusion/
distortion'. At the moment, I do not make any distinction between
{Delusion, Distortion}. For me, at the moment,the crudeness of this
seems sufficient for the intended purpose.
McCarthy is very prone to delusion and prone to publicizing her delusions.
For example, she deluded herself when she wrote a book about how perfect
her baby was, and she publicized that delusion doing live appearances
promoting that book even while she knew her son was having seizures.
According to her, one seizure stopped his heart.
She has since deluded herself into believing she cured her son of
autism. She has deluded herself into believing vaccines cause autism.
She now publicizes these delusions doing live appearances. She lied in
the past about her son's condition. Why should we believe a word she says?
There are a number of possibilities. One possibility is her son has a
seizure disorder that causes autism-like symptoms. It is even possible
that her interventions have cured or controlled the seizure disorder, in
which case the autism-like symptoms might be gone forever never to
return. It is also possible that her son's seizure disorder was a
temporary condition he simply outgrew.
It is also possible that her son has autism and still does. It's not
like McCarthy has a documented history of honesty when promoting her
books--quite the opposite in fact. It is possible the seizure disorder
was comorbid and that controlling the seizure disorder reduced stress on
her son diminishing his need for autistic stress coping mechanisms.
I have a friend whose daughter's meltdowns and stimming diminished
greatly after altering her diet. Even with all the best interventions
money can buy, she is still very much an autistic child. Having received
all the treatment McCarthy's son has and even more, she remains uncured.
McCarthy is deluded--clearly deluded--when she makes the broad sweeping
claims she does. I find her message not only deluded but offensive. Her
message is a message of bigotry, prejudice and judgment. In her world,
autism is wrong, and autistics are lesser people.
She is not a good person. She is evil. She harms her son. She harms
autistics in general. She gives men erections and sells books by
pandering to widespread biases and prejudices in society. I don't see
what's so great about either accomplishment.
Having stated what I have already done so earlier, I can now proceed
to say that I can TRACK, AGREE WITH and ACCEPT all of your various
clarifications.
I perceive them as distinct, individual 'emphases' and accept and
accommodate them as such. That is how I go about doing things.
I apologize for what feels to me like a stilted, awkward writing style
herein. I hope that you are able to follow me.
(To be continued as before your response.)
Whether I can follow you is not at all clear to me. All I can do is try.
RichUlrich
2008-11-18 02:58:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:10 -0400, Bob Badour
Raving wrote,
Post by Raving
I have a knack for seeing the 'emphasis'. Reading-a-mind is a concept
which might have many connotations. What I mean by reading-a-mind is
something which is exceedingly ordinary and underwhelming. Rather than
me claim that I can read-a-person's-mind, how about I say that I have
a knack of ... seeing a person's point-of-view ... catching a person's
drift ... picking out where a person is coming from.
In this case, I respectfully reiterate you delude yourself a little when
you believe that. I have no sense that you see my point of view at all
or that you catch my drift.
I don't know if Raving is AS. I'm not AS, and I could say
almost the same thing. I'm good at "catching the drift."
But I don't get it right all the time, and I wouldn't claim to.

Learning to read-the-intentions is a notable achievement for mid-high
functioning autism... It is good to get past the mind-blindness
which is a starting place that some never learn to recognize as
a feature of AS.

It is my observation, or hypothesis, that Raving's *claim* is a
common for some Aspergers. That is, the "mind-reading",
which is adult and intentional and not a life-long habit starting
with pre-puberty, is accompanied by the feeling of 100%
confidence in its accuracy. And that might make an AS more
likely to mention it than the NT would. (Just like, "New converts
are prone to be fanatics.") Here is a difference between AS
and normal cognition -- the NT has learned, deep down, that
there can be multiple roots for one expression, and finds it
fairly easy to accept that, even if they miss it at first. That is,
they can listen to arguments and change their minds. I've
seen AS who can't imagine any alternate explanation, even
when it is argued and obvious to others.
--
Rich Ulrich
Terry Jones
2008-11-18 10:32:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:58:50 -0500, RichUlrich
Post by RichUlrich
I don't know if Raving is AS.
ADHD (or something in that "family").
Post by RichUlrich
It is my observation, or hypothesis, that Raving's *claim* is a
common for some Aspergers. That is, the "mind-reading",
which is adult and intentional and not a life-long habit starting
with pre-puberty, is accompanied by the feeling of 100%
confidence in its accuracy. And that might make an AS more
likely to mention it than the NT would. (Just like, "New converts
are prone to be fanatics.") Here is a difference between AS
and normal cognition -- the NT has learned, deep down, that
there can be multiple roots for one expression, and finds it
fairly easy to accept that, even if they miss it at first. That is,
they can listen to arguments and change their minds. I've
seen AS who can't imagine any alternate explanation, even
when it is argued and obvious to others.
While I agree that an extreme certainty of being right about
*something* does seem to be noticeable, in my experience here it's not
specific to mind reading, nor indeed to "things which NTs can pick up
easily" - It could for instance be about the merits of the C
programming language over all others.

And there are plenty of NTs who are impervious to evidence or
argument, who can't imagine how any reasonable person would disagree
with them ("it's obvious ...").

Social / political / religious dogmatists, "tribalism" (where the
other group poses no credible functional threat), all the way through
to ideas about what constitutes "art" (and what doesn't). And let's
not forget psychs & autism "experts" :(

NTs (on average) may be somewhat more comfortable with "fuzziness" *in
certain areas*, though they mostly seem averse to complexity - prone
to soundbite thinking.

And their ideas may be somewhat more influenced by "the group".

But by and large, it seems to me more a question of degree and
manifestation - How and when rather than more / less.
--
Terry
Stephen Horne
2008-11-19 05:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
While I agree that an extreme certainty of being right about
*something* does seem to be noticeable, in my experience here it's not
specific to mind reading, nor indeed to "things which NTs can pick up
easily" - It could for instance be about the merits of the C
programming language over all others.
Post decisional dissonance - what I think of as the psychological
equivalent of the Schmidt trigger.

A result of instinctive distrust of the person who's trying to do the
persuading.

- Social anxiety mistaken as lack of confidence in the argument

- Social anxiety nonverbals seen as a sign of deception

- Nonverbals associated with cognitive effort, due to thinking through
the persuasion and due to being an autistic in a social interaction,
creating subconscious impression of deceptiveness

The tendency to associate too much logical argument with "fast
talking" deceptions - either too lazy or stupid to follow the argument
well enough to tell the difference.

The tendency to associate belief systems with group membership, so
that advertising a belief is like showing the colours, and being
sympathetic to a conflicting belief makes one an enemy sympathiser.

- Adopting and advertising beliefs of higher status groups in order to
appear higher status.

- Taking sides in a percieved conflict.

- Maintaining membership in everyday social groups.


Which seems to be mostly what was being said anyway - just thought I'd
see what I can add to the mix.
Raving
2008-11-19 13:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Proviso: Reading-over in a cursory, incomplete, careless manner. ...
( I consider that to be worthwhile and fortunate, here&now)
Post by Stephen Horne
Post by Terry Jones
While I agree that an extreme certainty of being right about
*something* does seem to be noticeable, in my experience here it's not
specific to mind reading, nor indeed to "things which NTs can pick up
easily" - It could for instance be about the merits of the C
programming language over all others.
I interpret "extreme certainty of being right" as rushing to
conclusion.
I do this all the time.
(... Oh what a feeling, baby! .. Oh ya' ! ... <huge shit eating
grin> )

Aside: Upon immediate retrospect, I recognize that "extreme certainty
of being right" clearly has many alternate inferential meanings.
Post by Stephen Horne
Post decisional dissonance - what I think of as the psychological
equivalent of the Schmidt trigger.
I am soooooo glad that I have never taken a psychology course, nor
read a psychology text. :)))
Post by Stephen Horne
A result of instinctive distrust of the person who's trying to do the
persuading.
"instinctive distrust" you ... or the 'psychologist' who isn't "you"
says ....

Methinks, I am hearing the OCD type psychologist's love affair with
shearing, cutting and isolating "continuity".

I.E. ...

Self restraint
Self control
Self blinkering
Not listening
Shutting out
Divide and conquer!
Bargepole-up-posterior mode.

OCD types have a different method for overcoming the 'Problem of
Continuity'. They divide, compartmentalize and isolate.


Enthusiastically,
Raving
RichUlrich
2008-11-19 07:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:58:50 -0500, RichUlrich
Post by RichUlrich
I don't know if Raving is AS.
ADHD (or something in that "family").
Post by RichUlrich
It is my observation, or hypothesis, that Raving's *claim* is a
common for some Aspergers. That is, the "mind-reading",
which is adult and intentional and not a life-long habit starting
with pre-puberty, is accompanied by the feeling of 100%
confidence in its accuracy. And that might make an AS more
likely to mention it than the NT would. (Just like, "New converts
are prone to be fanatics.") Here is a difference between AS
and normal cognition -- the NT has learned, deep down, that
there can be multiple roots for one expression, and finds it
fairly easy to accept that, even if they miss it at first. That is,
they can listen to arguments and change their minds. I've
seen AS who can't imagine any alternate explanation, even
when it is argued and obvious to others.
While I agree that an extreme certainty of being right about
*something* does seem to be noticeable, in my experience here it's not
specific to mind reading, nor indeed to "things which NTs can pick up
easily" - It could for instance be about the merits of the C
programming language over all others.
And I think I have experienced it where an AS argues that
he knows a word's definition and acceptable use, despite the
dictionaries and contradicting opinions of other people.
Post by Terry Jones
And there are plenty of NTs who are impervious to evidence or
argument, who can't imagine how any reasonable person would disagree
with them ("it's obvious ...").
Social / political / religious dogmatists, "tribalism" (where the
other group poses no credible functional threat), all the way through
to ideas about what constitutes "art" (and what doesn't). And let's
not forget psychs & autism "experts" :(
NTs (on average) may be somewhat more comfortable with "fuzziness" *in
certain areas*, though they mostly seem averse to complexity - prone
to soundbite thinking.
And their ideas may be somewhat more influenced by "the group".
But by and large, it seems to me more a question of degree and
manifestation - How and when rather than more / less.
I agree that it is a question of how and when.

I'm suggesting that here is an extreme example that may tend
to be symptomatic of AS, in the highest-functioning cases. "I know
what you are thinking, despite what you say are thinking."

I became interested in Asperger's when I learned enough to suspect
that a group of us, -- various people contributing advice on
statistics, in the netgroups on statistics -- were dealing with an
AS person. I reached that tentative conclusion after about a
year of passively observing and actively challenging him.
(I may be wrong, but I am not loose with offering a diagnosis.
I did take some psychology courses in college, and I worked
in research for 35 years with psychologists and social workers,
who mostly treated schizophrenic outpatients. Diagnosis was
always an active concern.)

Our AS lacked accurate perceptions of what other people wrote.
People would tell him, "Read it again," and "That's not what I said"
or "That's certainly not what I meant." His eventual reply could be,
"I know you are lying when you say you believe that." In his
last month of regular posting, he accused 9 different people of
lying. This indicates *something* is wrong with him, including
lack of social maturity. Oh, he frequently called people stupid,
etc., too.

People in other groups where he posted complained often
enough, and with detail, so that he has had his internet
access cancelled by his ISPs, a couple of times, including at
least once by GoogleGroups. Now, he has been a high-functioning
AS. He retired after a career as a tenured college professor.


Most of the people posting to ASA are much nicer people than him.
At least, they post very nicely. If they are overcoming some
sort of "natural tendencies" to be nasty, then they are doing
a very good job of it.

I don't know what that implies about my attempt at fitting a
diagnosis based on bad net behavior on someone who has been
behaving that way for many years.

Are most AS more easy-going? Or is that true of the ones
who have faced the fact that they have problems, and have
been through treatment regimens?

Of course, I have noticed some posts that seem to indicate that
nastiness is one side of *some* AS. And there have been a
couple of people who claim that they know what others are
thinking, on poor evidence or no evidence.

Therefore -- I recognize that there is overlap. But does the
case that I experienced seem to fit as high-functioning AS?
--
Rich Ulrich
Terry Jones
2008-11-19 09:15:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:43:03 -0500, RichUlrich
Post by RichUlrich
I'm suggesting that here is an extreme example that may tend
to be symptomatic of AS, in the highest-functioning cases. "I know
what you are thinking, despite what you say are thinking."
In my own case the perception of "dishonesty" tends to be based on
either;

A conflict between what is said and what is done - "actions speak
louder than words" - whereas too many people seem to demand that their
words and claimed intentions "speak louder" than their actions.

[Plus many of the expected to be accepted "social fictions", which so
often appear to work against me / the weaker party.]

Or a conflict between what is said / claimed, and external evidence
(not being honest to the evidence), where this is something they could
reasonably be expected to be aware of.
Post by RichUlrich
Therefore -- I recognize that there is overlap. But does the
case that I experienced seem to fit as high-functioning AS?
It certainly can happen, but what I'm questioning is how AS specific
this is?

There's plenty of NTs who "know" what you *really* mean / need / feel,
even though you're *telling* them something quite different (psych &
the "helping industry" amongst them) - IOW claiming that *their* "mind
reading" preempts your words.

Perhaps the main difference is that NTs tend to avoid "saying the
words" (that they think you're lying), but just go ahead and *act* as
if you are?
--
Terry
Stephen Horne
2008-11-19 12:46:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:43:03 -0500, RichUlrich
Post by RichUlrich
Our AS lacked accurate perceptions of what other people wrote.
People would tell him, "Read it again," and "That's not what I said"
or "That's certainly not what I meant." His eventual reply could be,
"I know you are lying when you say you believe that." In his
last month of regular posting, he accused 9 different people of
lying. This indicates *something* is wrong with him, including
lack of social maturity. Oh, he frequently called people stupid,
etc., too.
Lying is normal human behaviour. Normal people lie dozens of times a
day - and that's just the lies that they remember and are willing to
confess to a researcher.

That's not my opinion. That's textbook stuff.

Even what most people class as "white lies" are at least as much about
self interest - aimed at avoiding giving offense and thus preserving a
relationship. Very often, supposedly "white" lies actually harm the
person lied to.

That *is* my opinion, but one reached by critical analysis of actual
"white" lies and the results that they could reasonably be expected.

The basic point is that lying is something that autistics see
happening around them all the time, because it *is* happening all the
time. People keep reciting this bullshit moral principle about never
lying, even though those same precise people are lying all the time.

The difference is that your average NT has the social ability to know
when and how to lie, and how to get away with it. Who will see the lie
as being an acceptable one and who will not. And also the hypocrissy
to keep on reciting the moral principle and attacking others for being
liars (even when they are not), while at the same time lying routinely
himself.

Autistics have less ability to lie convincingly, to know when lying is
expected, and so on. Though surprisingly, it would be very hard for
autistics to be worse at spotting liars than the average person is
anyway. The normal (textbook again) is that people *think* they are
very good at spotting lies, but are actually extremely bad. They look
to the wrong nonverbals etc as clues. Professionals such as police
officers are generally convinced they are *very* good at spotting
lies, although they are actually no better than anyone else.

In fact, since autistics often have slightly wrong nonverbals (plus
often a large dose of genuine anxiety/stress nonverbals) - precisely
the kinds of nonverbals that most people wrongly interpret as being
associated with deception - autistics are very often accused of lies
and deception when they have only told the truth.

In addition, autistics are generally routinely bullied and victimised,
particularly during teenage years, and being lied to and manipulated
is a part of that. Since they are routinely distrusted, bullies know
that they can bully autistics and lie about it, and can make autistics
into scapegoats for their actions, and they will normally be believed.

Did you know that most bullies are socially successful and popular?

So overall, it isn't surprising that some autistics have a distorted
view WRT lies and so on. The NT view is distorted too - and the
autistic view gets further twisted as a result of screwed up
experiences.
Post by RichUlrich
Most of the people posting to ASA are much nicer people than him.
At least, they post very nicely. If they are overcoming some
sort of "natural tendencies" to be nasty, then they are doing
a very good job of it.
It is a common belief that high functioning autistics have a natural
tendency toward nastiness. Take away the word "nasty" and there is a
way in which they have a point, at least for some autistics.

People make a fundamental error in interpreting the symptoms of
autism. Dodgy nonverbals and anxiety nonverbals seem to suggest
deceptiveness. Signals relating to stress and distress resulting from
the general difficulty of social interaction are interpreted as
personal dislike for and rejection of the people interacted with.
Social avoidance due to the inability to cope with social situations
is seen as dislike for and rejection of the people avoided. Choosing
the wrong wording is seen as a Freudian slip or as callousness. Doing
or saying the wrong thing is seen as deliberate disruptiveness.

Given that superficial appearance of dislike for and rejection of
others etc, people tend to retaliate. And this feeds back into the
victimisation and scapegoating.

In that kind of environment, it is no shock that some autistics
retaliate against the constant victimisation, and develop a world view
where everyone is seen as an arsehole by default. Furthermore, given
the stress levels, it should be no surprise that there's at least an
occasional outburt. Many people react badly under pressure, and
autistics are under pressure all the time when dealing with other
people.

What should come as a surprise is that many autistics resist this,
making their strict (ie naive) moral principles, as taught to them by
NTs that don't follow them, into that last little shred of their self
respect that they cling to.
Post by RichUlrich
Are most AS more easy-going? Or is that true of the ones
who have faced the fact that they have problems, and have
been through treatment regimens?
Don't look for nasty-vs-nice in a diagnosis. Even sociopaths need not
be evil. Sure, they don't care about other people, only their own
interests. But they have good social skills, and so long as their own
interests are best met by getting along well with other people...

It's easy to look for immorality and nastiness in people with a
diagnostic label. It's easy to think that the disorder is just an
excuse for nastiness - even when there is no nastiness. It's called
prejudice.

There are certainly nasty autistics, just as there are nasty people
with every label, "normal" included. There's also this thing called
the fundamental attribution error - or correspondence bias. People are
always attributing things to personality or choice which actually
result from circumstances. Before you conclude that anyone is a nasty
person, look to their circumstances for explanations for what you see.
The nastiness might be a perfectly reasonable retaliation, or it might
be misdirected but still understandable reaction - or the nastiness
may only exist at all in your misinterpretation of perfectly innocent
behaviours.
Post by RichUlrich
Therefore -- I recognize that there is overlap. But does the
case that I experienced seem to fit as high-functioning AS?
Based on the limited description you gave, it is certainly possible.

In addition to the stuff above, I'll just make an extra point.

The worst period in mine an many others aspies experience is the
teenage years. This is a period when we are effectively imprisoned in
an intensely hostile environment called school. This can colour the
way other people are percieved long after leaving school, and in much
less hostile environments - (1) because the autism is still there and
creating enough difficulties to reinforce it, and (2) because those
perceptions act as a self-fulfilling prophecy, causing further
difficulties and thus reinforcing the perceptions.

In my case, when I left school, I was convinced that humanity is a
race of psychopathic monsters. After a couple of years, though, I
realised that I was creating a lot of the problems I was experiencing
- and that was the start of my psychology-based fix-myself obsession.
Turns out that that obsession was also incredibly damaging - basically
I ended up inventing CBT for myself, stripping away all my coping
mechanisms, forcing myself to take on more and more stress and so on
until I started a cycle of burnout breakdowns. But that's another
story.

Anyway, that person might well have very low self-esteem, and be
unable to admit to being wrong for that reason - or he may be
convinced that you're all playing a manipulative bullying game. Even
if the environment he is currently in is mostly benign, he may be
incapable of seeing it that way - and his little corner may well not
be, either because of the way people interpret his symptoms, or as a
result of his behaviour resulting from his experience-based distorted
world view.

Or of course, perhaps none of this is relevant in any way to that
person.
Bob Badour
2008-11-19 14:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichUlrich
Post by Terry Jones
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:58:50 -0500, RichUlrich
Post by RichUlrich
I don't know if Raving is AS.
ADHD (or something in that "family").
Post by RichUlrich
It is my observation, or hypothesis, that Raving's *claim* is a
common for some Aspergers. That is, the "mind-reading",
which is adult and intentional and not a life-long habit starting
with pre-puberty, is accompanied by the feeling of 100%
confidence in its accuracy. And that might make an AS more
likely to mention it than the NT would. (Just like, "New converts
are prone to be fanatics.") Here is a difference between AS
and normal cognition -- the NT has learned, deep down, that
there can be multiple roots for one expression, and finds it
fairly easy to accept that, even if they miss it at first. That is,
they can listen to arguments and change their minds. I've
seen AS who can't imagine any alternate explanation, even
when it is argued and obvious to others.
While I agree that an extreme certainty of being right about
*something* does seem to be noticeable, in my experience here it's not
specific to mind reading, nor indeed to "things which NTs can pick up
easily" - It could for instance be about the merits of the C
programming language over all others.
And I think I have experienced it where an AS argues that
he knows a word's definition and acceptable use, despite the
dictionaries and contradicting opinions of other people.
Post by Terry Jones
And there are plenty of NTs who are impervious to evidence or
argument, who can't imagine how any reasonable person would disagree
with them ("it's obvious ...").
Social / political / religious dogmatists, "tribalism" (where the
other group poses no credible functional threat), all the way through
to ideas about what constitutes "art" (and what doesn't). And let's
not forget psychs & autism "experts" :(
NTs (on average) may be somewhat more comfortable with "fuzziness" *in
certain areas*, though they mostly seem averse to complexity - prone
to soundbite thinking.
And their ideas may be somewhat more influenced by "the group".
But by and large, it seems to me more a question of degree and
manifestation - How and when rather than more / less.
I agree that it is a question of how and when.
I'm suggesting that here is an extreme example that may tend
to be symptomatic of AS, in the highest-functioning cases. "I know
what you are thinking, despite what you say are thinking."
I became interested in Asperger's when I learned enough to suspect
that a group of us, -- various people contributing advice on
statistics, in the netgroups on statistics -- were dealing with an
AS person. I reached that tentative conclusion after about a
year of passively observing and actively challenging him.
(I may be wrong, but I am not loose with offering a diagnosis.
I did take some psychology courses in college, and I worked
in research for 35 years with psychologists and social workers,
who mostly treated schizophrenic outpatients. Diagnosis was
always an active concern.)
Our AS lacked accurate perceptions of what other people wrote.
People would tell him, "Read it again," and "That's not what I said"
or "That's certainly not what I meant." His eventual reply could be,
"I know you are lying when you say you believe that." In his
last month of regular posting, he accused 9 different people of
lying. This indicates *something* is wrong with him, including
lack of social maturity. Oh, he frequently called people stupid,
etc., too.
That sounds a lot more like someone I knew who had paranoia disorder. In
verbal conversations, he would listen to the first couple words in a
sentence and then fill in the rest for himself without listening to the
remainder. He was constantly telling people they said things
diammetrically opposed to what they had actually said.

That doesn't sound much like autism at all. If the person does indeed
have autism, it sounds like something "comorbid."
Post by RichUlrich
People in other groups where he posted complained often
enough, and with detail, so that he has had his internet
access cancelled by his ISPs, a couple of times, including at
least once by GoogleGroups. Now, he has been a high-functioning
AS. He retired after a career as a tenured college professor.
Most of the people posting to ASA are much nicer people than him.
At least, they post very nicely. If they are overcoming some
sort of "natural tendencies" to be nasty, then they are doing
a very good job of it.
I don't know what that implies about my attempt at fitting a
diagnosis based on bad net behavior on someone who has been
behaving that way for many years.
Are most AS more easy-going? Or is that true of the ones
who have faced the fact that they have problems, and have
been through treatment regimens?
Exactly what "treatment regimens" do you conjecture?
Post by RichUlrich
Of course, I have noticed some posts that seem to indicate that
nastiness is one side of *some* AS. And there have been a
couple of people who claim that they know what others are
thinking, on poor evidence or no evidence.
That seems far more an NT trait than an AS trait. AS folks are not
accustomed to interpreting non-verbals to reveal subtext. NT folks are.
Post by RichUlrich
Therefore -- I recognize that there is overlap. But does the
case that I experienced seem to fit as high-functioning AS?
Not particularly.
Raving
2008-11-19 17:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichUlrich
I'm suggesting that here is an extreme example that may tend
to be symptomatic of AS, in the highest-functioning cases. "I know
what you are thinking, despite what you say are thinking."
The assertion comprises two parts that are linked ...

a) "I know what you are thinking, ..."
b) "... despite what you say are thinking."

Part "b)" is a qualifier to "a)". Being of secondary emphasis, I
discard further consideration of "b)" herein.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

---> "I know what you are thinking, ..."<---

Every person does this. It seems to be universal and unavoidable.

Ok. My writing is confusing. Thus I shall make a perspective
transformation and re-contextualize.

As stated from the "1st person, personal" perspective ...

---> "I know what *I* am thinking, ..." <---

And the default, implicit, projected assumption is ...

... "Every person is a clone of myself. Every person perceives as I
perceive. Every person cares about what I care about. Every person
knows what I know. Every person has experienced what I have
experienced. Every person wants what I want. Every person can easily
do the same sort of things which I can effortlessly do. Etc, etc .."

I suppose that such a caricature might be seen as being an extreme,
narrow, blind preoccupation-with-self. Be that as it may ... it is
also an OVERWHELMING "ASSUMPTION" of one's own personal experience,
understanding, ability, style, methodology and habit. It represents
the summed mass of all that we are as an individual. It denotes and
delimits all that we set out, assume and 'trust' in the background of
our every immediate, current thought.

It is quite wholly, unavoidable and inescapable.

We catch, use and limit ourselves to our own "drift" regardless of our
cognizance or lack thereof, concerning such.

Moreover, the individual and personal "drift" that each person takes
on is apt to be a very narrow, specific and constant sort-of-thing.
There is little opportunity or flexibility to comply with and adopt
another's very specific, individual 'take on things'.

There have been a few occasions wherein I have found myself seeing and
experiencing another's point of view, in the 1st person, personal
sense, as if I were standing in their shoes, looking out and seeing
through their eyes, sharing their sensibilities. There has always
been a huge problem for me to do such a thing. To be able to think and
experience as 'another', I must lose touch with how I myself normally
think and experience reality. In making the 'experiential
transformation' from one individual perspective to another, I must let
go of memories and reminisced experiences. In short, the experiences
and insights gained by the transformation are non transposable.

Regardless as to how wonderful, easy and beneficial it would seem to
be to do things another person's way, it is still *best* to learn how
to do it one's own way, using one's own strengths and sensibilities.

What if one cannot learn to do some task well? As the commercial
jingle goes ... "Some things are priceless. For everything else, there
is Master Card." Learn to recognize and stay close to what you do
well and effortlessly. Have others do what you yourself can manage in
an at best, mediocre and clumsy manner.

As for "I know what you are thinking, despite what you say are
thinking."?

At least the person has a sense of his/her own drift and that there is
a distinction between one person's drift and anothers' which is
inescapable and irreconcilable.

I consider language to be a remarkable device. It fools us into
believing that we express our thoughts accurately, that others
understand and accept what we ourselves are expressing, and that
others are for the most part in agreement and accepting of our own
opinion and position. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!! :-)
Post by RichUlrich
I did take some psychology courses in college, and I worked
in research for 35 years with psychologists and social workers,
who mostly treated schizophrenic outpatients. Diagnosis was
always an active concern.)
Schizophrenia has a very specific pattern which is revealed in how the
focal awareness is displaced. I am not an expert but I expect that
some of the *best* clinical practitioners whose day-to-day job is to
dagnose schizophrenia are are aware of this signature "word salad"
patterning. There are some very explicit characteristics to what is
meant by "Word Salad". It is NOT random, disconnected, incoherent
babble.

Godel was a schizophrenic. His 'incompleteness theorem' is a wonderful
example of schizophrenia type thinking at it's functional *best*.
Post by RichUlrich
Our AS lacked accurate perceptions of what other people wrote.
Most people lack this ability. Rather, each person has their own
individual, personal and very specific skill A person is a genius at
what they do well. A person needs to be a genius at at least one task.
That singular ability is brought to bear on less than ideal situation
to produce reasonable results. There is no harm or mistake in it.

Beyond that, there is one's spouse and Master Card to service the
ineptitudes.

Cordially,

Raving
Raving
2008-11-19 13:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichUlrich
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:10 -0400, Bob Badour
Raving wrote,
Post by Raving
I have a knack for seeing the 'emphasis'. Reading-a-mind is a concept
which might have many connotations. What I mean by reading-a-mind is
something which is exceedingly ordinary and underwhelming. Rather than
me claim that I can read-a-person's-mind, how about I say that I have
a knack of ... seeing a person's point-of-view ... catching a person's
drift ... picking out where a person is coming from.
In this case, I respectfully reiterate you delude yourself a little when
you believe that. I have no sense that you see my point of view at all
or that you catch my drift.
I don't know if Raving is AS. I'm not AS, and I could say
almost the same thing. I'm good at "catching the drift."
But I don't get it right all the time, and I wouldn't claim to.
I am an ADHD type person.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread".

I always "catch the drift", rush in ... and am certain that I have
gotten it 'right'! ...
... And I always get it 'wrong'.


Over time and innumerable failed attempts, my batt(er)ing score
improves.

Having ADHD is akin to experiencing dozens of "Eureka" awakenings per
day.

The suspense is unbearable and insufferable.
My ego and confidence are repeatedly shattered and reconstituted.
Raving
2008-11-21 01:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichUlrich
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:10 -0400, Bob Badour
I don't know if Raving is AS. I'm not AS, and I could say
almost the same thing. I'm good at "catching the drift."
But I don't get it right all the time, and I wouldn't claim to.
Learning to read-the-intentions is a notable achievement for mid-high
functioning autism... It is good to get past the mind-blindness
which is a starting place that some never learn to recognize as
a feature of AS.
The "model of mind" ought[*] to be a preoccupation which is
overwhelmingly dominated by autistic type thinkers.

It amazes me to realize that research and exploration of linguistics,
cognition, consciousness, and artificial intelligence is dominated by
those who have difficulty 'understanding' and/or accepting 'mind'.

Moreover, this is not merely a modern trend. Perhaps[*] more than any
other subject of scholarly inquiry, 'Philosophy' has been shaped and
refined from the context, with the perspective, and as a
representation of the autistic mindset. I consider the irony to be
profound and exquisite.

Just in case you are presuming that I am slagging autistics, think
again. Philosophy provides the essential foundation for science and
critical inquiry. Most of human intellectual achievement have been
forged, described and constrained by the autistic experience-of-
reality, Autistics and NTs alike, are obliged and bound by this
legacy.

Cordially,

Raving

--
[*] 'ought' as in "disclaimer" because I am quite wholly ignorant
concerning the topic.
Raving
2008-11-24 01:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Started writing this response a few days ago. Have decided to publish
it as I had originally wrote it, unfinished.

The 'Problem of Continuity' is the crux of things. Those with ADD,
BPD, OCD, PDD etc use distinct and differing methods to deal with it.

It is hugely difficult and confusing because it involves, thought-
ending, change of scale and also, both what is considered at the focus
and held implicit in the background.
Post by Bob Badour
In the sense that different people are deluded in different ways, yes, I
agree. Delusion is vector. People are also deluded in different amounts,
which is scalar. I find nothing surprising that it would have both
magnitude and direction.
I shall jump ahead of myself and provide you with a very quick and
abbreviated clarification.

What I mean for myself by "Delusion as vector" is that each delusion
is discontinuous ... a.k.a . unconnected .... to any other "Delusion
as vector".

The essential feature that I do specifically as an ADD type thinker,
which autistics do not do by the very essence of being PDD type
thinkers pertains to the method by which the 'so called' independent,
discontinuous "Delusional vectors" are assembled into a *functional*
continuum.

Yes, I know that I am making a seemingly paradoxical statement by
alluding to independent, discontinuous AND 'continuum' at the same
time ... but it really *isn't* contradictory. What resolves the
paradox involves something which is held, but has yet to be overtly
stated.

PLEASE NOTE:

1) PDD type thinkers seem to place all the emphasis (effort) in
constructing, maintaining, preserving, improving a single, exhaustive,
overbearing continuity.

"There is a devil in the details" and tremendous care and effort is
taken to ensure precise, and accurate siting and placement.

In general, there is "The problem of Continuity". The PDD type
approach ...which *actually* is the singular quality which defines
autism and makes it what it is ... is all about the method that
autistics use to manage "The problem of Continuity".

The PDD type thinker method is to create, preserve and sustain a
single, monolithic continuum-of-continuity.

2) THERE ARE OTHER METHODS of solving "The problem of Continuity"
which are NON-autistic.

******************************
It helps to appreciate that "The problem of Continuity" is actually
much greater and larger than that for which the PDD style method can
provide a feasible solution.
*****************************

What do I mean by this?

It would seem that the PDD approach solves all problems of continuity,
at the outset. ...

... I.E. Establish a single, universal continuity and preserve it!

What else is there?
What else could there possibly be?

Isn't the PDD technique exhaustive and universal from it's very
outset?

... actually 'No'. There is something that is even more fundamental
than 'establishing and preserving a universal,overbearing,
continuity'.

The MORE FUNDAMENTAL necessary requirement is:
THERE MUST EXIST 'CONTINUITY'!

Note:

a) 'establishing and preserving a universal,overbearing, continuity'.
does NOT overtly recognize this more fundamental NECESSITY. It merely
assumes it implicitly ... and thence immediately proceeds onwards to
constructing a REQUISITE EXAMPLE of "such"

(To be continued, somewhere and somehow. Sorry about the mess of it
all.)
Terry Jones
2008-11-24 22:53:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:27:01 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
What I mean for myself by "Delusion as vector" is that each delusion
is discontinuous ... a.k.a . unconnected .... to any other "Delusion
as vector".
Assuming that we mean something similar by the term "delusion", it
seems to me that many delusions for an individual or within a group
are connected - That they tend to occur in patterns and linked /
related "clusters".
Post by Raving
The PDD type thinker method is to create, preserve and sustain a
single, monolithic continuum-of-continuity.
I'd hardly say "monolithic"? - In my case connections are only between
elements relevant to the issue at hand. At any given time, some of the
"models" will feed into each other, but most are inactive.

Someone once described my way of thinking as a "spotlight", focusing
in on certain areas, and leaving the rest dark.

And as I mentioned as a result of memory problems, the sample of
relevant elements will vary each time I reconstruct the "model" (and
of course new information can modify the current analysis compared to
previous "runs").
--
Terry
Raving
2008-11-25 00:22:30 UTC
Permalink
I let out a laugh of surprise when I read through your response.

My first reaction was see that you had thoroughly contradicted the
"essence" of what I had intended to post next. My first reactions to
Bob's replies concerning 'vector' and connecting-disconnecting threw
me into a comparable state of reversal and confusion.

The "unexpected's" are a total surprise for me. When considering their
frequent regularity, I now anticipate being unexpectedly surprised at
every turn. I can only laugh at it and try to to take myself too
seriously. :-)

When I do a re-take, I realize that the clear contradiction occurs out
of a hidden, intense, implicit presumption on my own behalf, of which
I was not previously aware. There *almost* seems to be no end to such
'strong' presumptions. They are very 'transparent' <grin> ( I am using
transparent in the 'clear', indiscernible sense.)

What I recognize now, the second time round, on what you have pointed
out below, is that you are being very explicit, overt and 'forward-
looking' in your description.

What you point to, or what you draw my awareness toward in the focus
is one thing and a surprise-of-contradiction as I have already
mentioned.

Remarkably, it seems that you have a very different ... AND ALSO VERY
CLEAR MESSAGE ... insofar as what you carry 'implicitly' and by which
you explicitly assert what you do.

Your implicit message was wholly consistent with that which I had
originally intended to say next.

Speaking personally, I point out that I find it extremely
disorienting ...

... to confuse between the implicit where-one-is-coming-from
message ...

... and the explicit, forward-looking, where-this-is-converging-to
target message.

For me, it is so ultra, ultra focused and dense in a perceptual sense
that I have difficulty recognizing and remembering whether I am
"coming" or "going".

(I have forgotten why I started top-posting this response. I have no
idea as to whether my words will have meaning for you. I provide as
best as I can here on impulse. YMMV.)

I should try to re-post a response, addressing the specific features
of your assertions. ...

I apologize for the weird, brusque chop of my style. Steerage and
guidance in ultra focused exploration can be vigorous and
exhausting. ... and oh, so very, worthwhile! Thank you.
Post by Terry Jones
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:27:01 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
What I mean for myself by "Delusion as vector" is that each delusion
is discontinuous ... a.k.a . unconnected .... to any other "Delusion
as vector".
Assuming that we mean something similar by the term "delusion", it
seems to me that many delusions for an individual or within a group
are connected - That they tend to occur in patterns and linked /
related "clusters".
Post by Raving
The PDD type thinker method is to create, preserve and sustain a
single, monolithic continuum-of-continuity.
I'd hardly say "monolithic"? - In my case connections are only between
elements relevant to the issue at hand. At any given time, some of the
"models" will feed into each other, but most are inactive.
Someone once described my way of thinking as a "spotlight", focusing
in on certain areas, and leaving the rest dark.
And as I mentioned as a result of memory problems, the sample of
relevant elements will vary each time I reconstruct the "model" (and
of course new information can modify the current analysis compared to
previous "runs").
--
Terry
Raving
2008-11-25 00:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
For me, it is so ultra, ultra focused and dense in a perceptual sense
that I have difficulty recognizing and remembering whether I am
"coming" or "going".
(I have forgotten why I started top-posting this response. I have no
idea as to whether my words will have meaning for you. I provide as
best as I can here on impulse. YMMV.)
I should try to re-post a response, addressing the specific features
of your assertions. ...
I apologize for the weird, brusque chop of my style. Steerage and
guidance in ultra focused exploration can be vigorous and
exhausting. ... and oh, so very, worthwhile! Thank you.
It has just occurred to me that my brief spurt of focussed,
concerted ... *bang*, *bang, *bang* .... another bottle of beer on the
wall (falls) ... linear, progressive style ...

... is akin to mania. It seems to be how BPD type thinkers 'walk-over-
connections'.

A little bit of mania is a wonderful and productive thing. Shame that
I cannot sustain it.

I go out of my way to post about it here because ...

1) I *really do* suspect that I have momentarily embraced BPD thinking
methodology.

2) For me to embrace a style of thinking (continuity-spanning) which
is not ADHD is infrequent and rare.This is an unusual instance of such.
Raving
2008-11-25 01:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:27:01 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
What I mean for myself by "Delusion as vector" is that each delusion
is discontinuous ... a.k.a . unconnected .... to any other "Delusion
as vector".
Assuming that we mean something similar by the term "delusion", it
seems to me that many delusions for an individual or within a group
are connected - That they tend to occur in patterns and linked /
related "clusters".
I can understand and appreciate how you describe "delusion" above In
this instance, rather than seek consensus thereby allowing myself to
move, adjust and see it your way, I shall recklessly allow myself to
fall towards how I *might* view 'delusion'. My provisos are real and
deliberate. Each time that I ask myself ..."What do I perceive when
think of 'delusion'?, I pick out an individual, personal, isolated
view-of-the-instant. Each revisiting of the question is a new and,
varying, variable experience.

NOTICE: Strongly implicit to my assertion concerning 'delusion' is
that I experience 'delusion' as a wholly singular spectacle. Every
'delusional show' is a different performance and there is not much
thought given to comparing one to another. There is only one
'delusion' and it's what I see right now. Five minutes hence, it is a
whole new reality and thus a different experience.

Bottom line is that I am not in the habit of comparing 'delusions'. I
am in the habit of recognizing and accepting 'delusions' as I see
them.

It has not been my intention to provide you with a sneaky, flippant or
evasive reply ( .. I explore the possibilities or rather delude/
distort what I currently perceive as I write these very words to you
now! ...)

What I am *atempting* to emphasis in writing this is the manner or
habit by which I set about to 'engage', 'disengage',and utilize this
concept called "delusion".

I struggle to emphasis that there are other possibilities for
"Descriptive Precision" that are aside from matters such as specific
shape, size, content and location. ... there is also "how something
is approached, engaged, entered into,and released".

Seems to me that NTs are different than autistics ESSENTIALLY by way
of working and using 'description' in a manner that is atypical of
autism.

If such alternative possible 'engagements' of "DESCRIPTION" are not
overtly and explicitly pointed out, the alternative possibility is apt
to pass unnoticed and unrealized.
Post by Terry Jones
Post by Raving
The PDD type thinker method is to create, preserve and sustain a
single, monolithic continuum-of-continuity.
I'd hardly say "monolithic"? - In my case connections are only between
elements relevant to the issue at hand. At any given time, some of the
"models" will feed into each other, but most are inactive.
-------------
Post by Terry Jones
Someone once described my way of thinking as a "spotlight", focusing
in on certain areas, and leaving the rest dark.
My reaction when I read that above is be struck that you should 'feel-
the-need-to-emphasize it.

I also do the same as you describe. In fact I do it so much so that it
is strongly implicit, liquid, ethereal ...and I am mostly,
overwhelmingly quite unaware of the existence of an embedding
background.

Repeating, ... I pick up on your 'need' ( rather the 'suitability' )
of using the analogy. I would seize upon and use the 'spotlight'. Yet
on a way-it-feels level , for me the background does NOT exist.
Post by Terry Jones
And as I mentioned as a result of memory problems, the sample of
relevant elements will vary each time I reconstruct the "model" (and
of course new information can modify the current analysis compared to
previous "runs").
Huge grin. *That* is my reason for being 'psychologically' addicted
to using stimulants.

Without stimulants, reality is akin to the movie 'Groundhog Day' . I
suddenly realize that I have already made this exact,same insightful
discovery on a previous occasion. ... and I was utterly unaware that I
was traveling an earlier explored path until the instant that I seize
the concluding insight. As Yogi Berra would say ..."It's deja vue all
over agin." ... Yuck. Learning and growth is recognized and realized
to be an exercise in Sisyphusian futility.

Stimulants seem to turn learning and development, into a progressive
activity.
Raving
2008-11-25 03:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:27:01 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
The PDD type thinker method is to create, preserve and sustain a
single, monolithic continuum-of-continuity.
I'd hardly say "monolithic"? - In my case connections are only between
elements relevant to the issue at hand. At any given time, some of the
"models" will feed into each other, but most are inactive.
Someone once described my way of thinking as a "spotlight", focusing
in on certain areas, and leaving the rest dark.
And as I mentioned as a result of memory problems, the sample of
relevant elements will vary each time I reconstruct the "model" (and
of course new information can modify the current analysis compared to
previous "runs").
A third iteration of reply is required as the hardest thing for me to
describe concerning the difference between our concepts of "delusion"
has yet to be set out. I prefer to go back to your earlier example of
making sheets of perforated stamps with a sewing machine ... and of
lining toys up in a long, long, straight(?) line.

Here is another 'alignment' problem:

Two parallel toy train tracks. ... Two very different sorts of trains,
set up side by side each other.

Each of the two sets of tracks have different gauges. The train on the
left has longitudinal squiggles, is painted in garish day-glo colors
and there isn 't a hope in hell of matching up the two side by side
train of railway cars. The situation is explicitly devised to spoil
any and efforts at matching things up!

"There is a devil in the details" and my scenario of parallel matching
of two differing types of railway cars is calculated to make the match
up impossible ... and thus my challenge, a "torture of the
details". :-(

I am not trying to make you miserable, nor to force you to attempt the
impossible. What I am trying to 'describe/express/explain' is that....

... there are situations wherein alignment ( a.k.a. continuity,
a.k.a. pedantic attention to details in the description of a somewhat
specific manner.) ....

... does NOT work (efficiently or easily).

One does not ne4ed to quit in frustration at such seemingly impossible
situations. There are otherr ways of spanning the 'gap', of bridging
the void so as to establish and/or preserve the continuity.

Q: What are these other 'tricks' of creating 'continuity'?

A: Each of the 'other' types of NT have their own preferred, habitual
method.


Q: How can you perceive and understand these other methods?

A: The place to begin looking ...
... is to sensitize yourself to the possibility of
'working' (crafting, refining, using) a description in unfamiliar
ways.

Ok. Let me try my hand again at 'formal mathematics' :->

Problems occur in connecting/detaching when it is impossible to
establish CORRESPONDENCE.

Yup, I am talking ... 'correspondence', 'enumerability', etc.

Beyond that, I *think* , hope, outrageously optimistically
'presuppose', that I have a simple, elegant and easy way of
explaining ... ...and that explanation begins by providing a
'descriptive analogue' of Godel's incompleteness problem. :-)

Here is that description ...

Step #1
Try to conceive of nature 'before' or exterior to the 'big bang'?

Continuity ( ...connectedness ... ) begins and ends with cone of
space - time swept out by the big bang. What resides exterior to that
'Limit horizon' is more or less unknowable.

For the autistic , reality ends with the big bang. NTs are able to
jump across that discontinuous gap and keep on truckin' across a
greater, hidden, unknowable universe.

I'll be honest with you Terry. It's not a big deal. All of it is done
with metaphorical smoke and mirrors and other such 'perceptual
trickery'. Well ... um <blush> ... It *really* boils down to just one
very ordinary, familiar and boring trick.

The only downside of this trickery-of-illusion is the devil which is
associated with it. This devil is 'Confusion' and it is ultra
deceptive and tricky. I think I know how to sneak round behind
it. ;-)

Step #2
Thinking about 'big bangs' makes my head hurt. Use Plato's cave
analogy as a subtiute. It has a similar analogous structure and is
more ordinary and accessible.

Problem: How does one 'connect' to the continuity on the other side
of the screen or 'void' when one is unaware as to what resides
beyond?

Answer:
The solution will make you groan. It is the world's worst pun. ... I
promise! :)

[To be continued, somewhere ...]
Raving
2008-11-27 03:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:27:01 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
What I mean for myself by "Delusion as vector" is that each delusion
is discontinuous ... a.k.a . unconnected .... to any other "Delusion
as vector".
Hi,

Some feedback or response from Bob, Terry and/or anyone would be great
and very useful. The repertoire of possible meanings from ... a lack
of response is limited and maybe misleading for me.

I owe a great deal to those who took the time and made a huge effort
to engage me. Before moving on, I shall try at least once to summarize
in a comprehensible manner.

Comments?

Sincerely,

Raving
Bob Badour
2008-11-27 03:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
Post by Terry Jones
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:27:01 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
What I mean for myself by "Delusion as vector" is that each delusion
is discontinuous ... a.k.a . unconnected .... to any other "Delusion
as vector".
Hi,
Some feedback or response from Bob, Terry and/or anyone would be great
and very useful. The repertoire of possible meanings from ... a lack
of response is limited and maybe misleading for me.
I owe a great deal to those who took the time and made a huge effort
to engage me. Before moving on, I shall try at least once to summarize
in a comprehensible manner.
Comments?
Sincerely,
Raving
Sorry Raving,

I have 6 of your posts tagged for replying, but I just haven't had time
to do them justice. Plus I am dealing with some muscle spasms in my back
so I am a little spacey at the moment.
Raving
2008-11-27 04:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
Post by Raving
Post by Terry Jones
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:27:01 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
What I mean for myself by "Delusion as vector" is that each delusion
is discontinuous ... a.k.a . unconnected .... to any other  "Delusion
as vector".
Hi,
Some feedback or response from Bob, Terry and/or anyone would be great
and very useful. The repertoire of possible meanings from ... a lack
of response is limited and maybe misleading for me.
I owe a great deal to those who took the time and made a huge effort
to engage me. Before moving on, I shall try at least once to summarize
in a comprehensible manner.
Comments?
Sincerely,
Raving
Sorry Raving,
I have 6 of your posts tagged for replying, but I just haven't had time
to do them justice. Plus I am dealing with some muscle spasms in my back
so I am a little spacey at the moment.
No problem. ... and my writing is disorganized and often "low
grade" ( as a general "disclaimer" )

The biggest problem that I have in exploring and expressing what I
struggle to do is ...

- Very rapid drift and loss of focus.

- Very hyperfocussed

- Oohhing and ahhing concerning that which I hold in the back of my
mind ... and never get around to stating in an explicit over manner.

- Making huge changes of scale in "mid post" and thence getting lost
in some tight side focus.

- Constantly changing context, viewpoint and POV. (Don't ask me to
define those terms! <G> )

To be honest, A great deal depends on my ability to rush through
quickly enough making sufficient and appropriate changes in
perspective, viewing location and scale.



That rapid and changing flow in description ... essentially .... is:

- the essence of my ability.
- the reason that I get lost and don't complete.
- the source of my confusion and the device to escape confusion.

- the essence of 'Delusion' :)))))


==============================================

Let me make a bold, wild guess ...

There are thoughts that we have in the foreground of our mind, the
focal awareness ...

There is hidden awareness that we are vaguely and variously aware
about in the back of our mind.

Most people, including myself are very, very bad, oblivious,
forgetful, blank regarding that background void.

.. That which is assumed tends to be forgotten and ignored.
"Assumption" is intended to be like that.




When I read and listen to autistics, I have this sense that there is
NO BACKGROUND!

... Obviously, there must be a background ( .. or I am just being
cautious for fear of putting my foot in my mouth and getting it
wrong .. )

Yet, nevertheless, and very, very much so there is some special absent
quality to the autistic background which means EVERYTHING!

I emphasize this because I am coming to realize that I personally have
a knack for discovering .. or rediscovering ... this very
unmemorable, "assumed" hidden backdrop. [I find it very hard to
convey to NTs too, btw]

What I now feel strongly is that NTs use this "hidden" background in a
manner that autistics do not so.

.. but please realize! ... that background is very hidden and very
unmemorable for NTs too.


Perhaps it is the common difficulty of detecting, remembering and
expressing the hidden assumption that is the main reason that
'cognition' remains a mystery for as long as it has done so.
Eva
2008-11-27 05:02:00 UTC
Permalink
"Raving" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d8c682c1-a4b7-412e-aa70-***@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

When I read and listen to autistics, I have this sense that there is
NO BACKGROUND!

... Obviously, there must be a background ( .. or I am just being
cautious for fear of putting my foot in my mouth and getting it
wrong .. )

Yet, nevertheless, and very, very much so there is some special absent
quality to the autistic background which means EVERYTHING!

------------------
Maybe there isn't any "autistic background." If you mean "background" in
the sense of, like, cultural norms that "everybody knows." That's what
I--we--*lack*, isn't it?

(I'm just commenting on this one thing because most of your argument is way,
WAY, over my head.)

Eva
Raving
2008-11-27 05:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
When I read and listen to autistics, I have this sense that there is
NO BACKGROUND!
... Obviously, there must be a background ( .. or I am just being
cautious for fear of putting my foot in my mouth and getting it
wrong .. )
Yet, nevertheless, and very, very much so there is some special absent
quality to the autistic background which means EVERYTHING!
------------------
Maybe there isn't any "autistic background." If you mean "background" in
the sense of, like, cultural norms that "everybody knows." That's what
I--we--*lack*, isn't it?
(I'm just commenting on this one thing because most of your argument is way,
WAY, over my head.)
Eva
The "Emperor's New Clothes"

The Emperor has been trouncing around stark, buck, naked for decades.
All the courtiers modestly and respectfully compliment the emperor on
his fine choice of clothes. ...

[As I assume it, the courtiers really do believe the emperor is
wearing clothes. The formality and habit of it all has become so
ingrained that it isn't noticed even if it is apparent. ... What I
refer to is normal human experience. ... How do autistics experience
this?]

A little boy notice that the Emperor is prancing around in his
birthday suit. He calls out "The emperor has no clothes on! All hell
breaks loose ..."


I do NOT recall the end of the story ... and I don't really want to
know the end ... because there are several possible endings. Those
possible alternate endings intrigue me.

1. Normal ending., All the courtiers and townsfolk are astonished
that the emperor is nude. They are amazed that a little boy managed to
figure it out.

2. Raving's preferred ending: The courtiers become furious. They
berate the small child for stupidity, for saying nothing, for pointing
out what was obvious and apparent to everyone! .. that the emperor
was nude .. and not only was he nude today, but the emperor has been
nude for the last 2 decades. They tell the stupid boy to go home and
stay there for a year as punishment!

[The 'naked emperor' is the hidden background. .. the 'Naked emperor'
is the hidden constant background assumption. .. Everyone knows
it., .. Only after a while everyone accepts it and takes it for
granted. .. Eventually, it isn't even seen. ... Ultimately, it is
never considered any other way. ... The little boy calls out 'The
emperor is nude' . This immediately reconstitutes the blank, hidden
background and the courtiers are aware of what they have always been
aware of for the past 20 years BECAUSE the little boy took them back
30 years and connected 30 years ago and today in the instant of a few
seconds.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The courtiers really, really had not known that the emperor was
nude .. because they were so lost in the focus.

NTs confuse that assumed background very easily.

Autistics don't seem to have that background at all! By that that I
explicitly mean that autistics spend all their time in the
'foreground'.

Hmm ... Does any of this make any sense?

Here is the "punch line" of my unfinished explanation.

'Continuity' is EVERYTHING for autistics. It is a continuous
totality , as far as the mind's eye can see ...
.. the 'continuity is in both foreground and background for the
autistic ( just shooting off at the mouth impulsively here. .. honest
about it'


=========================================

Here is how NTs perceive the CONTINUITY-of-the-WHOLE. ...

I take that continuity fo0r grated. I assume. I accept it and attach
to it implicitly and intuitively without giving it much thought or
care.

For Raving who is an ADHD NT, the monolithic CONTINUITY is
OVERWHELMINGLY taken for granted ... assumed implicitly. .... Left
to occupy the back of my mind.

========================================

Autistics always seem to be working with the CONTINUITY up front and
in the focus.

As for what is 'implied' in the background? Shrug.
Canth
2008-11-27 05:48:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:54:48 -0800 (PST), Raving
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
SNIp
Post by Raving
When I read and listen to autistics, I have this sense that there is
NO BACKGROUND!
... Obviously, there must be a background ( .. or I am just being
cautious for fear of putting my foot in my mouth and getting it
wrong .. )
Yet, nevertheless, and very, very much so there is some special absent
quality to the autistic background which means EVERYTHING!
I emphasize this because I am coming to realize that I personally have
a knack for discovering .. or rediscovering ... this very
unmemorable, "assumed" hidden backdrop. [I find it very hard to
convey to NTs too, btw]
What I now feel strongly is that NTs use this "hidden" background in a
manner that autistics do not so.
.. but please realize! ... that background is very hidden and very
unmemorable for NTs too.
Perhaps it is the common difficulty of detecting, remembering and
expressing the hidden assumption that is the main reason that
'cognition' remains a mystery for as long as it has done so.
I hypothesise that what is missing, and what you perceive as no
background, is the non-verbal component. Autistics seem mostly to be
non-verbally deaf & as a consequence, non-verbally mute. Because of
this, their interaction with others is mainly verbal. In studying
communication among people, I find that figures as high as 90% of all
communication amongst NTs is considered non-verbal. What's more, most
NTs are unaware of their non-verbal communication.

So when an autistic is talking or writing, what you see is what you
get. But with NTs, there is implicitly a whole raft of communication
not visible on the surface. This could extend to writing in that most
autistics are also very literal in their use of language, so there is
no nuances in the sentence constructs. Things like hyperbole, simile,
puns, aphorisms, ect are hard for autistics to grasp, so are probably
absent from their writing.
Raving
2008-11-27 07:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Canth
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:54:48 -0800 (PST), Raving
SNIp
Post by Raving
When I read and listen to autistics, I have this sense that there is
NO BACKGROUND!
  ... Obviously, there must be a background ( .. or I am just being
cautious for fear of putting my foot in  my mouth and getting it
wrong .. )
Yet, nevertheless, and very, very much so there is some special absent
quality to the autistic background which means EVERYTHING!
I emphasize this because I am coming to realize that I personally have
a knack for discovering  .. or rediscovering ... this very
unmemorable, "assumed" hidden backdrop.  [I find it very hard to
convey to NTs too, btw]
What I now feel strongly is that NTs use this "hidden" background in a
manner that autistics do not so.
 .. but please realize!  ... that background is very hidden and very
unmemorable for NTs too.
Perhaps it is the common difficulty of detecting, remembering and
expressing the hidden assumption that is the main reason that
'cognition' remains a mystery for as long as it has done so.
I hypothesise that what is missing, and what you perceive as no
background, is the non-verbal component.  Autistics seem mostly to be
non-verbally deaf & as a consequence, non-verbally mute.  Because of
this, their interaction with others is mainly verbal.  In studying
communication among people, I find that figures as high as 90% of all
communication amongst NTs is considered non-verbal.  What's more, most
NTs are unaware of their non-verbal communication.
So when an autistic is talking or writing, what you see is what you
get.  But with NTs, there is implicitly a whole raft of communication
not visible on the surface.  This could extend to writing in that most
autistics are also very literal in their use of language, so there is
no nuances in the sentence constructs.  Things like hyperbole, simile,
puns, aphorisms, ect are hard for autistics to grasp, so are probably
absent from their writing.
OMG. ... This is so very close to what I understand and perceive.

Yes, I know that I am not responding accurately, right now and all
that .. Yet I have a relatively solid sense as to almost, exactly
what is specifically different here.

I have a conundrum at this moment, in that whereas what I appreciate,
realize and understand is remarkably clear and precise ... and also
very, very ordinary and ( common ..the "common" placed in brackets
for ?? .. weird reason ..) ...

I find it incredibly, incredibly confusing and 'volatile'. My
cognizance of it pops in and out of mind so incredibly quickly that it
is lost before I can remember ... or discover how to make it
memorable ... or hold it and refresh it to keep it in persistence.

Must sleep on this and ponder what you have written over and over.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Canth
I hypothesise that what is missing, and what you perceive as no background, is the non-verbal component. ...
"non-verbal component." ... For me that seems to be a mysterious,
intriguing, peculiar way of describing it, particularly so because ...

1) I have no idea as what you mean by "non-verbal" .... or much
more EXPLICITLY, I know EXACTLY what you mean by the "non"-verbal
part. ... I know it only *instinctively* ....

2) I'll spit it out .. I don't understand what "VERBAL" means.

Rather, sure I know what 'verbal' is ... but you are using it in
hyperfocus mode ...

Hmm ... you mean "verbal" equated to precision, exact,
description ... (Going from memory of what you wrote)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Canth
" Autistics seem mostly to be non-verbally deaf & as a consequence, non-verbally mute" ..
Yes, I agree that what you describe above ... at least what I think as
to what you mean by that above is the key.


What *may* be hugely important .... and might also be hugely
difficult for autistics ... I just don't know till I explore ...


Conjecture: Autistics *might* not be quite so 'non-verbally deaf' as
they imagine that they are ...

For me, at this moment it is a hugely worthwhile question.

Put otherwise: ... Is it possible to sensitize you as to "how to
listen"?

Maybe yes ... Maybe no. ...


--------

I have to work at, and work at, and work at ... the description ...
it is the description that I mentioned above ... insufferably
volatile and fleeting whilst also being incredibly ordinary and clear,
cleanly cut, explicit. <Grrrrrrrr of frustration>
Canth
2008-11-27 10:32:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:20:55 -0800 (PST), Raving
Post by Raving
Post by Canth
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:54:48 -0800 (PST), Raving
SNIp
Post by Raving
When I read and listen to autistics, I have this sense that there is
NO BACKGROUND!
  ... Obviously, there must be a background ( .. or I am just being
cautious for fear of putting my foot in  my mouth and getting it
wrong .. )
Yet, nevertheless, and very, very much so there is some special absent
quality to the autistic background which means EVERYTHING!
I emphasize this because I am coming to realize that I personally have
a knack for discovering  .. or rediscovering ... this very
unmemorable, "assumed" hidden backdrop.  [I find it very hard to
convey to NTs too, btw]
What I now feel strongly is that NTs use this "hidden" background in a
manner that autistics do not so.
 .. but please realize!  ... that background is very hidden and very
unmemorable for NTs too.
Perhaps it is the common difficulty of detecting, remembering and
expressing the hidden assumption that is the main reason that
'cognition' remains a mystery for as long as it has done so.
I hypothesise that what is missing, and what you perceive as no
background, is the non-verbal component.  Autistics seem mostly to be
non-verbally deaf & as a consequence, non-verbally mute.  Because of
this, their interaction with others is mainly verbal.  In studying
communication among people, I find that figures as high as 90% of all
communication amongst NTs is considered non-verbal.  What's more, most
NTs are unaware of their non-verbal communication.
So when an autistic is talking or writing, what you see is what you
get.  But with NTs, there is implicitly a whole raft of communication
not visible on the surface.  This could extend to writing in that most
autistics are also very literal in their use of language, so there is
no nuances in the sentence constructs.  Things like hyperbole, simile,
puns, aphorisms, ect are hard for autistics to grasp, so are probably
absent from their writing.
OMG. ... This is so very close to what I understand and perceive.
Yes, I know that I am not responding accurately, right now and all
that .. Yet I have a relatively solid sense as to almost, exactly
what is specifically different here.
I have a conundrum at this moment, in that whereas what I appreciate,
realize and understand is remarkably clear and precise ... and also
very, very ordinary and ( common ..the "common" placed in brackets
for ?? .. weird reason ..) ...
I find it incredibly, incredibly confusing and 'volatile'. My
cognizance of it pops in and out of mind so incredibly quickly that it
is lost before I can remember ... or discover how to make it
memorable ... or hold it and refresh it to keep it in persistence.
Must sleep on this and ponder what you have written over and over.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Canth
I hypothesise that what is missing, and what you perceive as no background, is the non-verbal component. ...
"non-verbal component." ... For me that seems to be a mysterious,
intriguing, peculiar way of describing it, particularly so because ...
1) I have no idea as what you mean by "non-verbal" .... or much
more EXPLICITLY, I know EXACTLY what you mean by the "non"-verbal
part. ... I know it only *instinctively* ....
Non-verbal component - body language and facial expressions,
particularly micro-expressions. The latter have only recently been
discovered, and so far very few types of people appear to have trained
themselves to read them [I note professional poker players seem to be
the most adept]. Yet they are ubiquitous and seem to have a low
cultural specificity, so people must learn to read & use them at a
pretty early age.

Autistics can overtly learn a lot about non-verbal communication
through drama classes. I spent quite a lot of time at Uni in drama
groups. I didn't actually perform on stage, but the groups helped me
learn a lot about non-verbal communication. We have our daughter
doing drama groups, including one aimed specifically at autistics. Dan
Akroyd credits the drama classes he took to help him with his AS for
starting him on the career in acting.
Post by Raving
2) I'll spit it out .. I don't understand what "VERBAL" means.
Rather, sure I know what 'verbal' is ... but you are using it in
hyperfocus mode ...
No I'm using it in a simple mode to mean spoken and written language.
Post by Raving
Hmm ... you mean "verbal" equated to precision, exact,
description ... (Going from memory of what you wrote)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Canth
" Autistics seem mostly to be non-verbally deaf & as a consequence, non-verbally mute" ..
Yes, I agree that what you describe above ... at least what I think as
to what you mean by that above is the key.
What *may* be hugely important .... and might also be hugely
difficult for autistics ... I just don't know till I explore ...
Conjecture: Autistics *might* not be quite so 'non-verbally deaf' as
they imagine that they are ...
For me, at this moment it is a hugely worthwhile question.
Put otherwise: ... Is it possible to sensitize you as to "how to
listen"?
I did classes in assertive communication in which I got training in
listening skills. I exercise these consciously, and organising &
running face to face meetings are very draining because of that.
Post by Raving
Maybe yes ... Maybe no. ...
--------
I have to work at, and work at, and work at ... the description ...
it is the description that I mentioned above ... insufferably
volatile and fleeting whilst also being incredibly ordinary and clear,
cleanly cut, explicit. <Grrrrrrrr of frustration>
Raving
2008-11-27 12:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Sorry for the mishmash below ...

When you first mentioned "non verbal", it resonated strongly with me.
Before reading this response and upon reconsideration I realized that
you were probably referring to body language, emotions and facial
expressions.

The "non verbal" hyperfocus listening to you intrigues me ..

You wrote .... ""So when an autistic is talking or writing, what you
see is what you
get. ... This could extend to writing in that most
autistics are also very literal in their use of language, so there is
no nuances in the sentence constructs."

Strange (for me) how you say that. Yes, I know what you mean ...

... What strikes me as remarkable is that you view facial
expression, body language (and emotions by extension, as is often
mentioned here) as ...

Repeating ... you view/approach/treat/process facial expression, body
language and emotions as if they were words, verbal language ...

You seem to suggest that you have learned to treat/read/listen to
expressions and emotions as if they were words. I.E. .. very
literally. I.E. What you see is what you get.

Equally remarkable is that .. treating words literally ... treating
expressions/emotions literally.

Cripes! ... Isn't that just the same sort of thing as the autistic
"Model of Mind"?

I.E. .. treated literally.

When I claimed that I did not understand the "Verbal" part of "Non"-
verbal, I was probably saying that I had difficulty in fully
appreciating the significance, richness and implications of "Literal".

It occurs to me that although I am careless, sloppy and insensitive to
words in the autistic way, I can fall into a habit of of being
exceedingly pedantic. ... a non-autistic type of pedantics

If interested see ...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.autism/msg/39d3cd545518ae53

My conjecture is that there seems to be a very specific characteristic
to autistic literalness. That characteristic also applies to
discerning expressions, emotions and 'Model of mind'.

Does this make any sense?
Post by Canth
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:20:55 -0800 (PST), Raving
Non-verbal component - body language and facial expressions,
particularly micro-expressions. ....
...
..... Yet they are ubiquitous....
"So when an autistic is talking or writing, what you see is what you
get. ... This could extend to writing in that most
autistics are also very literal in their use of language, so there is
no nuances in the sentence constructs. Things like hyperbole, simile,
puns, aphorisms, ect are hard for autistics to grasp, so are probably
absent from their writing. "
Post by Canth
Autistics can overtly learn a lot about non-verbal communication
through drama classes. I spent quite a lot of time at Uni in drama
groups. I didn't actually perform on stage, but the groups helped me
learn a lot about non-verbal communication. We have our daughter
doing drama groups, including one aimed specifically at autistics. Dan
Akroyd credits the drama classes he took to help him with his AS for
starting him on the career in acting.
Post by Raving
2) I'll spit it out .. I don't understand what "VERBAL" means.
Rather, sure I know what 'verbal' is ... but you are using it in
hyperfocus mode ...
No I'm using it in a simple mode to mean spoken and written language.
Yet I am experiencing and listening to you in a hyperfocus mode.
(..which is fine...) You are expressing ordinarily and I am listening
very close up.
Post by Canth
.../snip/
I did classes in assertive communication in which I got training in
listening skills. I exercise these consciously, and organising &
running face to face meetings are very draining because of that.
Fatigue - When using stimulants, I get a fatigue similar to that
(maybe) when I hyperfocus and overtly maneuver and redirect the target
of my gaze. It feels like a small fish in a viscous fluid. There is a
lot of physical movement and displacement required to move between
nearby locations.

Cordially,

Raving

Raving
2008-11-27 05:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
Sorry Raving,
I have 6 of your posts tagged for replying, but I just haven't had time
to do them justice. Plus I am dealing with some muscle spasms in my back
so I am a little spacey at the moment.
Thanks. I appreciate whatever you care to provide whenever or if ever
you are favorably disposed to do so.

I won't add further .. but might jump to a summary another day. ...
as an impulsive sling with all the passion that I can muster. Perhaps,
that is the only way that I can achieve it.

I am sorry that I am probably a hard read.

I can accept "No comment" too. The people here have always been
very patient and helpful to me.

People have put much work and passion into responding.

I am deeply grateful,

Raving

(My real name is David Brown but I still like using 'Raving'. The
sense of distance and acting are fun and dis-inhibiting, even though I
am exactly the same sort of person in real life 'writing'.)
Stephen Horne
2008-11-17 23:55:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:07:23 -0400, Bob Badour
Post by Bob Badour
She has since deluded herself into believing she cured her son of
autism.
Well, at least WRT this particular "delusion", she probably has some
good reason for that belief due to expert "delusions".

I think it was you who posted the link to the "Toward a Behavior of
Reciprocity" PDF by Morton Ann Gernsbacher. To be honest I've only
read the abstract so far, but even that makes a good point (which most
of us here are already aware of) which is relevant - that autism
experts have "forgotten that reciprocity is a two-way street".

I'd word it slightly differently. The experts tend to assume that the
person with the disorder must be the failure in any failed
interaction, and fall into the old blame-the-victim pattern. They
don't notice that the NTs misinterpretation of autistic symptoms leads
to a retaliation against rejection that never existed, and the
autistic is merely reacting to the routine unjust pattern of
"retaliation". Presumably because the experts have the same intuitions
and make the same misinterpretations as other NTs.

Anyway, the point is that the experts strongly imply - and often
explicitly state - that a lack of reciprocal behaviour is fundamental
to autism. I can well believe that Jenny McCarthys son does in fact
show reciprocal behaviour. So do I, and so do most autistics I've met,
given the right conditions.

Actually, most of the "anti-social" autistic behaviour that is classed
as non-reciprocal is in fact reciprocal. Reciprocal doesn't mean nice.
Meeting negative with negative is reciprocal. Seeing negative
everywhere when it is in fact *almost* everywhere (and you don't have
the energy or ability to accurately determine which are the few
exceptions) is just common sense.

So is it surprising that she thinks she has cured her son? From this
perspective, not really.

I'm not saying her views are justified in any wider sense than this
one particular issue, though. Just that this one error is
understandable given the erroneous information that she has no doubt
been given by experts.
Raving
2008-11-21 01:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
Post by Raving
No, actually. Delusion is scalar....
=====>"Delusion is scalar"
This is of high value importance to me. It provides me with strong
indication that I am on to a meaningful track with this.
Speaking for myself personally more so than as 'typical NT' ...
=====>"Delusion is vector"
In the sense that different people are deluded in different ways, yes, I
agree. Delusion is vector. People are also deluded in different amounts,
which is scalar. I find nothing surprising that it would have both
magnitude and direction.
'Delusion', better for me as a vector than scalar. Best of all as a
'bastard', 'orphaned' vector, should we be able to come to some
agreement as to defining/describing such a thing.

Bastard and orphaned because the vector is detached and has come into
view as a stranger, unexpected and unknown. Making the newly arrived
entity feel at home somewhere by finding it proper accommodation is
not going to be easy. At least it is not going to be very
aesthetically pleasing because the 'fit' as to location will be
'middling' at *best*

This vector is a stranger who is as yet unseated and surely to be a
"bastard". How does the fabled autistic universe greet and accommodate
such a creature? The correct genealogy is ascertainable. "Proper
placement" is not an option here. Melding in of the *new* is the only
way that the visitor can be accepted.

"Listening" for suggestions, now .... (???)
Bob Badour
2008-11-21 02:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by Raving
No, actually. Delusion is scalar....
=====>"Delusion is scalar"
This is of high value importance to me. It provides me with strong
indication that I am on to a meaningful track with this.
Speaking for myself personally more so than as 'typical NT' ...
=====>"Delusion is vector"
In the sense that different people are deluded in different ways, yes, I
agree. Delusion is vector. People are also deluded in different amounts,
which is scalar. I find nothing surprising that it would have both
magnitude and direction.
'Delusion', better for me as a vector than scalar. Best of all as a
'bastard', 'orphaned' vector, should we be able to come to some
agreement as to defining/describing such a thing.
Bastard and orphaned because the vector is detached and has come into
view as a stranger, unexpected and unknown. Making the newly arrived
entity feel at home somewhere by finding it proper accommodation is
not going to be easy. At least it is not going to be very
aesthetically pleasing because the 'fit' as to location will be
'middling' at *best*
This vector is a stranger who is as yet unseated and surely to be a
"bastard". How does the fabled autistic universe greet and accommodate
such a creature? The correct genealogy is ascertainable. "Proper
placement" is not an option here. Melding in of the *new* is the only
way that the visitor can be accepted.
"Listening" for suggestions, now .... (???)
I am not sure I understand. Vectors don't have location. They have
magnitude and direction. Without location in the first place, from what
would it be orphaned?
Raving
2008-11-21 07:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
I am not sure I understand. Vectors don't have location. They have
magnitude and direction. Without location in the first place, from what
would it be orphaned?
LOL!!!!


Logic, I could understand.

Calculus, I could understand, deeply, easily, at some deep fundamental
level.

Infinite series, correspondence, series expansion, I could understand.
No problem, etc.

The one major math topic which always befuddled me and pretty much
ensured that I could not get very far with anything else was ...

... Linear Algebra

I shudder to think about the number of time that I learned and re-
learned ... and memorized to go through the motions ONLY to never have
the slightest sense of what I was doing.

Matrices were a total mystery to me. Sure I could memorize how to set
them up and manipulate them. .. but that amounted to no more than
muttering unknown words in some foreign language, devoid of
significance.

==>Vectors don't have location.
==>They have magnitude and direction.

What you wrote above is that which I failed to fundamentally
appreciate..

Interesting. Significant.
Oh, so very serendipitous ...
<giggle>

Must sleep on this ...


(Shall respond again later)

Aside: Damn 'Vector Fields'!
Damn Vector Spaces!

Aside: Confusion between elements of an unordered set and 'ordered
sets of elements' (vectors, eh?) lol.
... or something like that. Will take time to sink in.

... confusion, confusion ...

Memo to self & request for clarification:
"Without location in the first place, from what would it be
orphaned?"

Vector ....
... assume a finite ordered( meaning ?) set of attributes ...

Vectors in a vector field have location coordinates as part of the
ordered set. Cleave off the location ordered elements and unordered
vector elements remain.

Finite (or infinite) ordered set. Orphaning (...cleaving off, part of
the ordered information...) That sounds similar to the process of
induction.


--
Any element of a vector space

* Euclidean vector, a geometric entity endowed with both length
and direction, an element of a Euclidean vector space
* Coordinate vector, in linear algebra, an explicit representation
of an element of any abstract vector space
* Probability vector, in statistics, a vector with non-negative
entries that add up to one
* Row vector or column vector, a one-dimensional matrix often
representing the solution of a system of linear equations
* Tuple, an ordered list of numbers, sometimes used to represent a
vector

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Vector
Raving
2008-11-24 01:41:52 UTC
Permalink
This response was also written earlier and was left incomplete and
unfinished.

"Devil in the details". Autistics (philosophers) can be very, very
pedantic ....

1) It occurs to me that I can also be exceedingly 'pedantic' and I am
not autistic.
====>( And I struggle furiously to express myself badly)

2) It occurs to me that I am pedantic in a manner that is different to
'autistic pedantics' (notwithstanding my outrageous, cheesy, lumping,
assertion concerning autistics.)

Actually, what is reallly interesting (for me) is to realize ...
====>"Devil in the details" <===

*Cough* *cough* there appears to be more than one sort of
'bedeviled details'.

The sort of details that I am scrambling and scratching to embrace are
not the same 'type' as the more traditional (philosophical/autistic)
detail.

I consider that to be very important and fascinating. YMMV -|

Again, my apology for all the verbal and conceptual shit.
Post by Bob Badour
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by Raving
No, actually. Delusion is scalar....
=====>"Delusion is scalar"
This is of high value importance to me. It provides me with strong
indication that I am on to a meaningful track with this.
Speaking for myself personally more so than as 'typical NT' ...
=====>"Delusion is vector"
In the sense that different people are deluded in different ways, yes, I
agree. Delusion is vector. People are also deluded in different amounts,
which is scalar. I find nothing surprising that it would have both
magnitude and direction.
'Delusion', better for me as a vector than scalar. Best of all as a
'bastard', 'orphaned' vector, should we be able to come to some
agreement as to defining/describing such a thing.
Bastard and orphaned because the vector is detached and has come into
view as a stranger, unexpected and unknown. Making the newly arrived
entity feel at home somewhere by finding it proper accommodation is
not going to be easy. At least it is not going to be very
aesthetically pleasing because the 'fit' as to location will be
'middling' at *best*
This vector is a stranger who is as yet unseated and surely to be a
"bastard". How does the fabled autistic universe greet and accommodate
such a creature? The correct genealogy is ascertainable. "Proper
placement" is not an option here. Melding in of the *new* is the only
way that the visitor can be accepted.
"Listening" for suggestions, now .... (???)
I am not sure I understand. Vectors don't have location. They have
magnitude and direction. Without location in the first place, from what
would it be orphaned?
:)

Aside: Please be gentle. I am 'mildly' competent at mathematics and
logic but I am not autistic. <G> Yes, you are perfectly correct and I
see right away, more or less 'exactly' <wince> what you are pointing
out. Reworking, thus ...

Vectors .. No location. ... A bucket of nuts, bolts and
widgets ... poorly spec'd , badly crafted, nuts, bolts and widgets.

At some occasion, there is the business of aligning and matching up. I
was motivated to use the concept of 'vector' because of the detachable
- attachable quality that the vector concept intuits.

When you responded by pointing out that Delusion-as-vector afforded no
difficulty for you, I jumped to the realization that breaking and
making 'continuity' was natural and consistent with the autistic
experience.

Stepping backwards (reversing) one pace in my development, yet
again ...

My main insight concerning autism involves the following fragment of
consideration:

'Continuity' is very important for autistics. From a heuristic
standpoint, I might crudely, weakly, diffusely, badly envisage
'continuity' as something that is intimately involved with a surface,
sheet or volume. (Yes, I am aware that sheet & surface are very
different sorts. I carelessly and inappropriately use "surface"
because I want to envisage [.. as in capture] sheets [extended
volumes] volumes in higher dimensions, whatever that might mean
because I am unable to visualize such.)

Sheets can be cut, ripped and torn. The 'continuity' can be severed.

In some 'hypothetical' and very significant, important and as yet-to-
be-described ( or as yet incomprehensibly described by me) manner
'MAINTAINING THE CONTINUITY' .. preventing the tearing and or fraying
and or disintegration ... is of essential concern to autistics.

When you pointed out that vectors presented no difficulty to you, I
immediately recognized that 'cutting & pasting' my heuristically
envisaged 'sheet of continuity' presented no difficulties for
autistics, either.

Hmm, in one sense making & breaking continuity is effortless for
autistics.
Conversely, and in some as yet undermined manner, making & breaking
continuity is exceedingly problematic.

As John said .. "There is the devil in the details."

I *really do* see that as being the essential factor. ( ...as it
pertains to my usage of 'vector', etc.)

Attention to details, ... as in very clear, precise, universal,
enduring, accurately described and conveyed ... is the ultra-
emphasis, .. intensively, extensively, and enduringly so.

What is the reason for this incredible autistic preoccupation with
'description' and in the sense of 'precision' ? (rhetorical)

"Somehow" I know ... or have learned ... that 'descriptive precision'
relates to it's involvement regarding 'continuity'. It is as if
EVERYTHING MUST HAVE IT'S PRECISE and PERFECT and 100% ASSURED
'coordinate' (... registration, index, alignment ...) Autism is
characterized by the incredibly accurate, dense, low defect, fabric of
continuity (connectivity).

A fantastic example of this preoccupation with 'careful definition' so
as to align ( to line up, to rank in order) is 'philosophy'.
Raving
2008-11-24 02:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
This response was also written earlier and was left incomplete and
unfinished.
"Devil in the details". Autistics (philosophers) can be very, very
pedantic ....
"Attention to the details" ... Yes, that is what creates the
distinction. The details which I struggle at are not the 'normal'
sort of details, as emphasized in philosophy or physics.

What do I imagine 'normal' details to be ...
Detail pertaining to 'ordination'.

I mean details as they pertain to locating, placing, ranking,
ordering.

... Details which pertain to establishing and maintaining
'continuity', connection ...

The large ordering of the continuity creates a huge locational map,
doesn't it?
Nicole Koekebacker
2008-11-25 22:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Amen, who ever thought the ditz from that lame show ( I can't even
remember the name) would be taken as a medical expert...
Post by Bob Badour
Post by Raving
Post by Bob Badour
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
Neither has McCarthy or anyone else for that matter. Just because she
goes to great lengths to publicize her delusions in now way diminishes
the delusion.
--->"her delusions in now way diminishes the delusion."<---
Your description of 'delusion' amazes me.
I misconstrued the inference the first time round, yet each occasion
that I revisit and refresh that newly gained insight, my surprise is
regenerated.
As inferences tend to implode into the focus and thus are forgotten, I
repeatedly re-visit this realization in the hope that it will make a
more indelible impression upon me.
Your meaning of 'delusion' seems to be strongly shaped by 'autistic'
thought. What you mean by it is something which I would consider to be
very precise, very constant, and very specific.
(Aside: In retrospect, no surprise there, eh.)
My 'read' of your meaning of 'delusion' is as if the concept is a
scalar measure with zero representing absence of 'delusion' and some
large, sky-is-the-limit value for 'heavy delusion'. In the context of
how it applies to McCarthy, there is the implicit suggestion that the
'delusion' and it's scalar value is constant and enduring.
I suppose the main significance here is that 'delusion' is a scalar
concept, that it either is or isn't present and if 'delusion' is so
present then there is a quantitative sense for the degree or amount of
the stuff.
I am motivated to say that your usage is shaped by 'autistic' thought
because I presume that autistic reality is relatively distortion/
delusion free. Establishing and maintaining 'continuity' (of
relationship) is a big deal for an autistic style thinker.
I view your usage of 'delusion' as being that 'delusion' represents
some serious stress, distortion or tear in the fabric of the
continuity to things.
(more to be added shortly.)
No, actually. Delusion is scalar. We are all prone to delusion --
autistics included. Some are more deluded than others. I respectfully
suggest you delude yourself a little when you believe you can read my
mind. McCarthy is very prone to delusion and prone to publicizing her
delusions.
For example, she deluded herself when she wrote a book about how perfect
her baby was, and she publicized that delusion doing live appearances
promoting that book even while she knew her son was having seizures.
According to her, one seizure stopped his heart.
She has since deluded herself into believing she cured her son of
autism. She has deluded herself into believing vaccines cause autism.
She now publicizes these delusions doing live appearances. She lied in
the past about her son's condition. Why should we believe a word she says?
There are a number of possibilities. One possibility is her son has a
seizure disorder that causes autism-like symptoms. It is even possible
that her interventions have cured or controlled the seizure disorder, in
which case the autism-like symptoms might be gone forever never to
return. It is also possible that her son's seizure disorder was a
temporary condition he simply outgrew.
It is also possible that her son has autism and still does. It's not
like McCarthy has a documented history of honesty when promoting her
books--quite the opposite in fact. It is possible the seizure disorder
was comorbid and that controlling the seizure disorder reduced stress on
her son diminishing his need for autistic stress coping mechanisms.
I have a friend whose daughter's meltdowns and stimming diminished
greatly after altering her diet. Even with all the best interventions
money can buy, she is still very much an autistic child. Having received
all the treatment McCarthy's son has and even more, she remains uncured.
McCarthy is deluded--clearly deluded--when she makes the broad sweeping
claims she does. I find her message not only deluded but offensive. Her
message is a message of bigotry, prejudice and judgment. In her world,
autism is wrong, and autistics are lesser people.
She is not a good person. She is evil. She harms her son. She harms
autistics in general. She gives men erections and sells books by
pandering to widespread biases and prejudices in society. I don't see
what's so great about either accomplishment.
pumpkin
2008-11-17 06:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
wouldn't the correct parallel be "Have you ever claimed to..." and the
answer is no.

What's your
Post by pautrey2
experience with autism?
many many interactions with autistic people; research with professionals who
work in the field; editing of two books on the subject; recording of
one....extensive ...

oh never mind.

My youngest
Post by pautrey2
brother 'had' autism.
Paul
And thus your youngest brother figured out how to overcome the
limitations of autistic type thinking and make advantage of such in a
productive, effective, fulfilling sense. Many people who are autistic
or employ other methods of going about things are not so fortuitous.
That is a major and inspiring accomplishment, Paul. :)
pautrey2
2008-11-17 07:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
wouldn't the correct parallel be "Have you ever claimed to..." and the
answer is no.
What's your
Post by pautrey2
experience with autism?
many many interactions with autistic people; research with professionals who
work in the field; editing of two books on the subject; recording of
one....extensive ...
oh never mind.
 My youngest> brother 'had' autism.
Post by pautrey2
Paul
And thus your youngest brother figured out how to overcome the
limitations of autistic type thinking and make advantage of such in a
productive, effective, fulfilling sense. Many people who are autistic
or employ other methods of going about things are not so fortuitous.
That is a major and inspiring accomplishment, Paul.   :)
Raving
2008-11-17 09:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
wouldn't the correct parallel be "Have you ever claimed to..." and the
answer is no.
What's your
Post by pautrey2
experience with autism?
many many interactions with autistic people; research with professionals who
work in the field; editing of two books on the subject; recording of
one....extensive ...
oh never mind.
What's my experience with autism? ... and the answer would be "not
much"

... "pumpkin"
... "billowroad"
... many many interactions
... recording of one....extensive ... / oh never mind.

--------------------------------------------------------

I have an eye for catching the *emphasis* ...
... and I am searching for your drift at this very moment.

Seems to me that the many, many rolling hills of expert, experienced
beans has amounted to somewhat less than Jack squat.

Cordially,

Raving (a.k.a. ... 'emphasis' ... get my drift, yet? )
pumpkin
2008-11-18 06:07:22 UTC
Permalink
well, my experience is greater than McCarthy's, in any event.
Post by Raving
Post by pumpkin
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism?
wouldn't the correct parallel be "Have you ever claimed to..." and the
answer is no.
What's your
Post by pautrey2
experience with autism?
many many interactions with autistic people; research with professionals who
work in the field; editing of two books on the subject; recording of
one....extensive ...
oh never mind.
What's my experience with autism? ... and the answer would be "not
much"
... "pumpkin"
... "billowroad"
... many many interactions
... recording of one....extensive ... / oh never mind.
--------------------------------------------------------
I have an eye for catching the *emphasis* ...
... and I am searching for your drift at this very moment.
Seems to me that the many, many rolling hills of expert, experienced
beans has amounted to somewhat less than Jack squat.
Cordially,
Raving (a.k.a. ... 'emphasis' ... get my drift, yet? )
Frank
2008-11-17 00:48:19 UTC
Permalink
"pautrey2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9b4df28a-50ea-4db3-8827-***@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 2:07 pm, "pumpkin" <***@att.net> wrote:
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism? What's your
experience with autism? My youngest
brother 'had' autism.

Paul
===============================================
You had nothing to do with curing anyone of Autism.

Is your brother alive?
pautrey2
2008-11-17 01:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Pumpkin,
Jenny claims to have cured/reversed
her son's of autism. Have you ever
cured anybody of autism? What's your
experience with autism? My youngest
brother 'had' autism.
Paul
===============================================
You had nothing to do with curing anyone of Autism.
Is your brother alive?
Frank,
My brother was killed in an automobile accident!
He was 23 years old.
Would you like to poke fun at him?

Paul
pumpkin
2008-11-17 06:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Frank,
My brother was killed in an automobile accident!
He was 23 years old.
Would you like to poke fun at him?

no, let ME, let ME

(I mean, really, the ludicrousness of this....)
pautrey2
2008-11-17 07:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Frank,
My brother was killed in an automobile accident!
He was 23 years old.
Would you like to poke fun at him?
no, let ME, let ME
(I mean, really, the ludicrousness of this....)
Pump,
You're about as sick and twisted as Frank.
Has anybody ever called you a 'creep'?

Paul
Frank
2008-11-18 00:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Frank,
My brother was killed in an automobile accident!
He was 23 years old.
Would you like to poke fun at him?
no, let ME, let ME
(I mean, really, the ludicrousness of this....)
Pump,
You're about as sick and twisted as Frank.
Has anybody ever called you a 'creep'?

Paul
========================================
My, aren't you sensitive, lol.

You are also very stupid, you didn't even get the Pumpkin's post.

Oh WTH why not do as you asked, eh?

Let's do the Hokey Pokey!
Put the left foot in
put the left foot out
Put the left foot in and shake it all about........
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
2008-11-16 16:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.
Then why repost all the junk?
pumpkin
2008-11-16 20:07:56 UTC
Permalink
I didn't post anything, other than my comment about her.
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Post by pumpkin
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.
Then why repost all the junk?
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
2008-11-16 21:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Post by pumpkin
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.
Then why repost all the junk?
I didn't post anything, other than my comment about her.
You quoted the entire post.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

:-)
Raving
2008-11-16 22:17:50 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 4:50 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Post by pumpkin
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Post by pumpkin
I don't consider Jenny McCarthy an authoritative figure.
Then why repost all the junk?
I didn't post anything, other than my comment about her.
You quoted the entire post.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Stupidity?
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
:-)
:)
Raving
2008-11-16 22:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving
On Nov 16, 4:50 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
You quoted the entire post.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Stupidity?
One person's meat is another person's poison.

'Stupidity' is somewhat subjective and also relative to a person's
individual point of view.
Bob Badour
2008-11-16 22:23:34 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 16, 4:50 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
<snip>
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Stupidity?
Just plain old garden variety stupidity is not annoying. Militant
stupidity and invincible ignorance annoy.
Raving
2008-11-16 22:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Badour
On Nov 16, 4:50 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
<snip>
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Stupidity?
Just plain old garden variety stupidity is not annoying. Militant
stupidity and invincible ignorance annoy.
'Cause its unilateral, irrevocable, and dismissive.

If pig headed, meat head is unreceptive, it can drive the 'virtual'
absent half of the discourse into fits of exasperation, such as those
which "Stylianos" displays.

I don't mean to be negative in saying this, yet proviso aside ...

"Tuning out" and "cutting off" is very much an OCD type person's style
of doing things. It is their strength and also their limitation. The
parable of the "Three wise monkeys" can be used to show both virtue
and vice.

Cordially,

Raving
pumpkin
2008-11-17 06:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
A: Theism
:-)
:)
pumpkin
2008-11-17 06:27:54 UTC
Permalink
I can't help it, I've always preferred being on top.

my error was not deleting everything below.
:-)
pautrey2
2008-11-17 07:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
I can't help it, I've always preferred being on top.
my error was not deleting everything below.
:-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Terry Jones
2008-11-17 09:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by pumpkin
I can't help it, I've always preferred being on top.
my error was not deleting everything below.
It seems to be an issue with several newsreaders, that they default to
quoting the whole of the post to which you're replying.
--
Terry
Stephen Horne
2008-11-17 10:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
It seems to be an issue with several newsreaders, that they default to
quoting the whole of the post to which you're replying.
The newsreader isn't able to judge exactly what should be quoted. It's
easier to delete what you don't want than to go back, find, cut and
paste what you do.
Terry Jones
2008-11-17 14:47:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:02:14 +0000, Stephen Horne
Post by Stephen Horne
Post by Terry Jones
It seems to be an issue with several newsreaders, that they default to
quoting the whole of the post to which you're replying.
The newsreader isn't able to judge exactly what should be quoted. It's
easier to delete what you don't want than to go back, find, cut and
paste what you do.
I'm using an old version of Forte Agent - With that if you highlight a
section of a post, then click Reply, it only quotes the section you
highlighted.

Of course if you want to refer to multiple sections it's as you
describe, either copy and past, or use the default full quoting, then
delete the unwanted.
--
Terry
Stephen Horne
2008-11-17 22:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Jones
I'm using an old version of Forte Agent - With that if you highlight a
section of a post, then click Reply, it only quotes the section you
highlighted.
Actually, I'm using the same - version 1.93.

I forgot about that feature.
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
2008-11-18 00:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Horne
Post by Terry Jones
I'm using an old version of Forte Agent - With that if you highlight a
section of a post, then click Reply, it only quotes the section you
highlighted.
Actually, I'm using the same - version 1.93.
I forgot about that feature.
It still works on the later versions, at least so far.
--
Autistic Spectrum Code v.1.0
AP! AS! d-(pu)@ s-: a1962 c+++(++) p+ t-(++)@ f-(---) S++(+) p@ e++ h++ r++ n(--) i++(+) P m+() M+(++)

ASC Decoder at <http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode/>
pumpkin
2008-11-16 20:19:29 UTC
Permalink
As a journalist, I revile the "legitimate" media for elevating this to the
level of "news" when it is simply a position paper by a person whose
opinions would be ignored were she not a Level D "celebrity." It's right in
there with the slew of books by Valerie Bertinelli, "Marcia Brady," and
Brooke Shields, who become "spokespersons" for post-natal depression or
anorexia or breast cancer or whatever by virtue of their slop-infested
memoirs, which waste trees and suck in the gullible public.
Is the "story" McCarthy's son, or is the story McCarthy herself and her
experiences/beliefs/crusade? Countless other parents and siblings and
therapists have written books about their experiences with autism. There are
"moms" (and shame on her for the sexist glop) with better "stories."
This is flavor of the month and unfortunately it has lasted months....ugh.
Shame on the media, other than Entertainment Tonight or other celebrity
platforms, for showcasing her.

At some level I believe she wants to help and thinks she is doing so
(although she says she is doing this because she made a promise to some
omnipotent supreme being; I wonder why other parents never thought of
praying that their children be healed: amazing that she was the first!). But
this McCarthy cult that arises is tangential to the core issues. She wonders
why experts don't want to examine her son and hear her story. To me it's
very clear why, and she hasn't done her homework or she would know about the
dozens of books/stories that preceded hers, and the associated
research/theories/conclusions/hypotheses.

Just my indignant and stuffy opinion of course.

"pautrey2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7cb894eb-75b8-4efd-becf-***@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism


Story Highlights
McCarthy believes diet and vitamins helped her son recover from autism

Vaccines played a role in son's autism, she says

McCarthy and Jim Carrey think children being given too many vaccines,
too soon

By Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Special to CNN
April 4, 2008

Editor's note: Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are actors and parents
actively involved in autism-related causes. McCarthy is the author of
the book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism."

(CNN) -- In light of the recent Hannah Poling decision, in which the
federal court conceded that vaccines could have contributed to her
autism, we think the tide is finally turning in the direction of
parents like us who have been shouting concerns from our rooftops for
years.

Autism is a debilitating disorder, which according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is suffered by 1 in 150 kids, making
it more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined.

Recently, England and Ireland reported that autism is affecting one in
58 individuals.

Is it any wonder that autism has become many new parents' No. 1 fear?

We've met some of the most amazing moms and dads who are forging their
own path to prevention and recovery. When our son, Evan, was diagnosed
with autism we were lucky enough to benefit from their knowledge and
experience. Evan has been healed to a great extent by many
breakthroughs that, while perhaps not scientifically proven, have
definitely helped Evan and many other children who are recovering from
autism. Parents vs. scientists: Watch the latest test case »

There are some who wonder what we mean when we say "recovering" from
autism. They confuse the word recover with cure. While you may not be
able to cure an injury caused in a terrible car accident, you can
recover; you can regain many skills that you once lost. In the case of
autism, we think there are treatments that often bring about such
healing, so that the observable symptoms of the condition no longer
exist. Even though we may no longer see any symptoms of autism, we
can't say a child is "cured" because we do not know what they would
have been like had they never been injured.

We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free, casein-
free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-fungals
for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan's
neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments,
speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn
the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism. After we
implemented these therapies for one year, the state re-evaluated Evan
for further services. They spent five minutes with Evan and said,
"What happened? We've never seen a recovery like this." Watch Jenny
McCarthy talk about her son's autism »

Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism. When Evan meets doctors and
neurologists, to this day they tell us he was misdiagnosed -- that he
never had autism to begin with. It's as if they are wired to believe
that children can't recover from autism. Watch CDC chief on vaccines,
autism »

So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our
door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't
arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child
from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their
child's autism.

We think our health authorities don't want to open this can of worms,
so they don't even look or listen. While there is strong debate on
this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they
didn't treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine
injury. Read about latest fight over vaccines and autism

Many people aren't aware that in the 1980s our children received only
10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations,
most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could
it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit
engine then a means of prevention?

We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the
only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If
we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the
rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule,
reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients
that could be toxic to some children.

We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines
like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are
operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are
acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge
improbability.

Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and
autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered
as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for
alternative schedules, check out http://generationrescue.org.)

We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines,
but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the
ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being given too
many, too soon!

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the
writers.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/
scattered
2008-11-17 19:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
(snip)

I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Mark Probert
2008-11-18 03:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by scattered
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
(snip)
I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child. It seems a tad weird that treatment continues after "recovery".
pautrey2
2008-11-19 05:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Probert
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child.
MP,
You are an unlimited source of criticism
but you never offer solutions. If an MD
were treating her child with allopathic drugs
it would be symptomatic treatment and toxic
treatment for life. New drug diseases!

Paul
Post by Mark Probert
Post by scattered
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
(snip)
I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child. It seems a tad weird that treatment continues after "recovery".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
markprobert@lumbercartel.com
2008-11-19 11:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Post by Mark Probert
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child.
MP,
You are an unlimited source of criticism
but you never offer solutions.
Early intervention, special education, parent education, and realizing
that, as of now
AUTISM IS INCURABLE so, get over the guilt, stop blaming anyone, and
be a parent.
Quit using your kid as a lab test animal. Stop wasting money on
quacks.

If an MD
Post by pautrey2
were treating her child with allopathic drugs
it would be symptomatic treatment and toxic
treatment for life. New drug diseases!
Sorry doofus, but Autism existed way before it was first identified as
a separate disorder.

Jenny should get a clue, but her career needs help, so her kid is her
victim.
Post by pautrey2
Paul
Post by Mark Probert
Post by scattered
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
(snip)
I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child. It seems a tad weird that treatment continues after "recovery".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
pautrey2
2008-11-19 17:15:34 UTC
Permalink
If you continue to reject science, it will
always be incurable in your mind.
Post by ***@lumbercartel.com
Post by pautrey2
Post by Mark Probert
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child.
MP,
You are an unlimited source of criticism
but you never offer solutions.
Early intervention, special education, parent education, and realizing
that, as of now
AUTISM IS INCURABLE so, get over the guilt, stop blaming anyone, and
be a parent.
Quit using your kid as a lab test animal. Stop wasting money on
quacks.
If an MD
Post by pautrey2
were treating her child with allopathic drugs
it would be symptomatic treatment and toxic
treatment for life. New drug diseases!
Sorry doofus, but Autism existed way before it was first identified as
a separate disorder.
Jenny should get a clue, but her career needs help, so her kid is her
victim.
Post by pautrey2
Paul
Post by Mark Probert
Post by scattered
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
(snip)
I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child. It seems a tad weird that treatment continues after "recovery".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Frank
2008-11-20 01:36:23 UTC
Permalink
"pautrey2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8c079e79-f265-45ce-9a3a-***@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
If you continue to reject science, it will
always be incurable in your mind.
===================================================
WOW, incredible, you are absolutely clueless as to what science is.

It is rather obvious that truth escapes you.
markprobert@lumbercartel.com
2008-11-21 23:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
If you continue to reject science, it will
always be incurable in your mind.
===================================================
WOW, incredible, you are absolutely clueless as to what science is.
It is rather obvious that truth escapes you.
Truth avoids him.
markprobert@lumbercartel.com
2008-11-21 23:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
If you continue to reject science, it will
always be incurable in your mind.
But I am not rejecting science. I am embracing real, evidence based
science. Jenny, and you, have no handle on that.
Post by pautrey2
Post by ***@lumbercartel.com
Post by pautrey2
Post by Mark Probert
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child.
MP,
You are an unlimited source of criticism
but you never offer solutions.
Early intervention, special education, parent education, and realizing
that, as of now
AUTISM IS INCURABLE so, get over the guilt, stop blaming anyone, and
be a parent.
Quit using your kid as a lab test animal. Stop wasting money on
quacks.
If an MD
Post by pautrey2
were treating her child with allopathic drugs
it would be symptomatic treatment and toxic
treatment for life. New drug diseases!
Sorry doofus, but Autism existed way before it was first identified as
a separate disorder.
Jenny should get a clue, but her career needs help, so her kid is her
victim.
Post by pautrey2
Paul
Post by Mark Probert
Post by scattered
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
(snip)
I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child. It seems a tad weird that treatment continues after "recovery".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
pautrey2
2008-11-26 22:41:34 UTC
Permalink
MP (Casey Anthony),
I'm going to let you have the last word.

PA
Post by ***@lumbercartel.com
Post by pautrey2
If you continue to reject science, it will
always be incurable in your mind.
But I am not rejecting science. I am embracing real, evidence based
science. Jenny, and you, have no handle on that.
Post by pautrey2
Post by ***@lumbercartel.com
Post by pautrey2
Post by Mark Probert
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child.
MP,
You are an unlimited source of criticism
but you never offer solutions.
Early intervention, special education, parent education, and realizing
that, as of now
AUTISM IS INCURABLE so, get over the guilt, stop blaming anyone, and
be a parent.
Quit using your kid as a lab test animal. Stop wasting money on
quacks.
If an MD
Post by pautrey2
were treating her child with allopathic drugs
it would be symptomatic treatment and toxic
treatment for life. New drug diseases!
Sorry doofus, but Autism existed way before it was first identified as
a separate disorder.
Jenny should get a clue, but her career needs help, so her kid is her
victim.
Post by pautrey2
Paul
Post by Mark Probert
Post by scattered
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
(snip)
I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Jenny has never explained why she is still treating her "recovered"
child. It seems a tad weird that treatment continues after "recovery".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
pumpkin
2008-11-20 05:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by pautrey2
Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
(snip)
Post by pautrey2
Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you
at least she said "might surprise a lot of you" and took the "duh" burden
off of HERSELF, lol...she didn't write "I can't believe that..."

is that
Post by pautrey2
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to evaluate and
understand how Evan recovered from autism.
and you know, they also don't contact the famlilies of children healed by
prayer.

(snip)

I dunno - maybe the CDC has better things to do than to look at
anecdotal evidence?
Science doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on those who
claim that a certain treatment is effective. There are a lot of
"alternative therapies" out there (google "Master Cleanse" if you want
to see a typical one. Then again - don't. I don't want to see any
autistic kids given lemonade diets) and the CDC is not in the business
of investigating such claims.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...