Jenny McCarthy Body Count: Probably not what you think it is

[Neoteny]

Jim Carey lol

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/ ... l.php#more

[Neoteny]

More Wakefield silliness...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 32c489f355

[Neoteny]

Hey look, Wakefield can't practice in the UK anymore.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8695267.stm

[saxitoxin]

#1 - (not O/T but slightly askew of topic) No one should attempt to "cure" or "treat" autism at all. Neurodiversity benefits human genetic development and we don't need to force children to the majority's view of normalcy. "Management" of autism is fine but "treatment" is corrupting, slavish and amoral.

#2 - Peter Bell, the CEO of Cure Autism Now, the largest autism "advocacy" organization is a former Brand Manager for a pharmaceuticals division of Johnson & Johnson.

#3 - It is the most supreme fallacy possible to assume that, because one is a physician at the so-called CDC or FDA one's word is golden. Both organizations have been discredited many, many times as advertising adjuncts of corporate-whore medicine. Most recently, and dramatically, the case of Dr. David Graham, FDA whistleblower in the Vioxx scandal who has repeatedly reported he was told Big Pharma were "the FDA's clients" over his protests that the FDA should be acting in the interest of public health. How many people died horrible deaths because of the FDA's service to its "clients" in the Vioxx scandal alone?

[InkL0sed]

#1 - (not O/T but slightly askew of topic) No one should attempt to "cure" or "treat" autism at all. Neurodiversity benefits human genetic development and we don't need to force children to the majority's view of normalcy. "Management" of autism is fine but "treatment" is corrupting, slavish and amoral.

Hey sax. I'm confused. Why is the amorality of the "treatment" of autism relevant to it being bad? Are you saying it's bad because it's amoral? But that doesn't make any sense, because if it's bad, it must be immoral, no?

Like I said, I'm confused. I'm sure you have a good explanation for this.

Yours truly,

Ink

[saxitoxin]

#1 - (not O/T but slightly askew of topic) No one should attempt to "cure" or "treat" autism at all. Neurodiversity benefits human genetic development and we don't need to force children to the majority's view of normalcy. "Management" of autism is fine but "treatment" is corrupting, slavish and amoral.

Hey sax. I'm confused. Why is the amorality of the "treatment" of autism relevant to it being bad? Are you saying it's bad because it's amoral? But that doesn't make any sense, because if it's bad, it must be immoral, no?

Like I said, I'm confused. I'm sure you have a good explanation for this.

Your generalized state of confusion was anticipated by me, Saxitoxin.

1 - I don't see where I used the word bad - or a synonym of bad - in the quote you referenced. If you can do me the favor of highlighting it I will be happy to address it, however.

2 - If I said it were immoral that would, colloquially, suggest some nefarious state-of-mind.

Parents who seek to "treat" autism are likely doing it without any worldview of morality; no more than someone seeking to fix their broken leg would likely do so with prior musing on the morality of having it set.

[Neoteny]

And another paper gets retracted...

http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v105/ ... 0149a.html