Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Where is "David N. Andrews MEd (Distinction)"?

As is typical of those who wish to obfuscate the truth about autism, Andrews seems to be on the fence about conjuring up a valid reply to Watson. Isn't it interesting how neurodiverse nitwits start hanging around someplace else when their insanity is exposed?

In response to John:

At Tue Aug 21, 03:13:00 PM EDT, David N. Andrews MEd (Distinction) said...

“Your trouble is that you never grew up.

Sad state of being, that is.

Poor Sam, with a role model like you.”


At Wed Aug 22, 12:35:00 AM EDT, watson said...

“David N. Andrews MEd (Distinction),

You say that the trouble with John is that he never grew up.

I'd say that the biggest difference between you and John is that you have never lived with Autism and he has - for almost a decade.

While activists such as yourself have been living in the comfort zone, believing that vaccines can't damage children, and that autism is a healthy neurological difference shared by all the great historical figures - a gift from the gods almost - and basking in the prestige of your new diagnosis, he has been trying to cope with the daily challenges of living with autism 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year - for 10 years. And I imagine John grew up a long, long time ago.

He and I, and many other parents living with autism, are not living in a fantasy world. We don't get our information about autism by reading textbooks, or autobiographies written by phoney "autistics" celebrating the beauty of their "autism" - we live with it. And it is far from beautiful.

When did you start calling yourself "a higher being" and believing that you were superior to what you refer to as "normals", and when did you start disseminating nonsense about autism, David?

Was it in your thirties after your switch in diagnosis from dyslexia to Aspergers? I know it was a struggle for you to get your diagnosis changed but I presume you did eventually get an Aspergers diagnosis. What year was that?

Or was it after you met Simon Baron-Cohen in, what was it, 1999 and discussed with him whether Aspergers was necessarily a disability? I'd love to hear about that."


At Wed Aug 22, 12:37:00 PM EDT, David N. Andrews MEd (Distinction) said...

“Watson: "I'd say that the biggest difference between you and John is that you have never lived with Autism and he has - for almost a decade."

“Wrong. My daughter's 8 yrs old and autistic. I HAVE lived with it. Learn to live with being wrong."


At Thu Aug 23, 01:09:00 AM EDT, watson said...

“David, I see you avoided answering the important questions in my message.

Here they are again:

""When did you start calling yourself "a higher being" and believing that you were superior to what you refer to as "normals", and when did you start disseminating nonsense about autism, David? Was it in your thirties after your switch in diagnosis from dyslexia to Aspergers? I know it was a struggle for you to get your diagnosis changed but I presume you did eventually get an Aspergers diagnosis. What year was that? Or was it after you met Simon Baron-Cohen in, what was it, 1999 and discussed with him whether Aspergers was necessarily a disability?"

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would like some answers.

David N. Andrews MEd (Distinction) said...

"Watson: "I'd say that the biggest difference between you and John is that you have never lived with Autism and he has - for almost a decade."

Wrong. My daughter's 8 yrs old and autistic. I HAVE lived with it. Learn to live with being wrong.”


Wrong?

Am I, David?

About what exactly?

You are as careful with your wording as Amanda Baggs.

You do not say that your daughter has Autism, you say she is "autistic". You say she is 8 1/2 years old, giving the impression that you have lived continuously with Autism for almost as long as John has, and therefore you are claiming to know what living with Autism is like.

I say you have never lived with the type of autism that John has to deal with every day; you have not lived with an "autistic" child continuously for 8 1/2 years, and therefore you can not know from personal experience what living with autism is like.

What makes me say that?

Well, although at times you refer to your daughter as "an autie", and call her "autistic", she's not really "an autie", is she David? She's "an Aspie".

Your daughter was the very first toddler ever to be diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome at the age of 26 months. And she was diagnosed by your friend "Simon", autism expert Dr Simon Baron-Cohen, and his team, in 2001.

Baron-Cohen wanted to find out if Aspergers could be identified in a young child, and if Aspergers could be shown to be a genetic disorder, so you and your wife volunteered for his prospective single case study. A child with Aspergers born to a couple with Aspergers would support the hypothesis of a genetic heritability of the disorder.

Baron-Cohen chose you and your wife because you were both diagnosed by experts, and your Aspergers diagnoses were confirmed by Baron-Cohen's own AQ test which is a self-report test. (How many teenagers and adults do you reckon have self-diagnosed and joined the Aspie club since this test first appeared online in 2001?)

Tell me, David, which expert gave you your Aspergers diagnosis? Was it Simon Baron-Cohen himself? It wasn't Professor Digby Tantam another world leading autism expert and author of several books on Aspergers, was it? Because he wouldn't give you one.

There are two things that I find curious about this study. The assumption that Aspergers, a behavioural disorder, is genetic. And the timing.

I cannot believe that Simon Baron-Cohen is unaware that 'on the spectrum' behaviours can be caused by environmental factors, such as emotional trauma in childhood, traumatic head injury, encephalitis, and drugs. Why then did he assume that you and your wife's diagnoses of Asperger's Syndrome were a) accurate, and not related to other factors, b) genetic?

The timing is interesting because before this study appeared, the average age for an Aspergers diagnosis was 11 years.

In the late 1990s, Australasian expert Dr Tony Attwood said that it was impossible to diagnose a child under 7 years with Aspergers, the clinical picture had to became clearer - and that necessitated time.

Since the appearance of Baron-Cohen's study, toddlers have been given the Aspergers diagnosis and Atypical Aspergers diagnosis. And because of the myth , "Once autistic, forever autistic. There is no cure" disseminated by Neurodiversity, parents now believe that their Aspie children are "autistic" and will "have autism" for life.

So then, it's not really surprising that so many parents of Aspie children are against a cure for autism. Their kids don't have autism, and I dare say, many kids diagnosed today don't even have Asperger's Syndrome.

David, Your daughter as a toddler was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome by your friend, autism expert Dr Simon Baron-Cohen, and his team in 2001. Did he take into account that your daughter was living in a bi-lingual environment? I see no mention of this important fact in the study. Or, that a child raised by parents with relationship difficulties might have some impact on a normal child's development. Was this even considered?

You give the impression above that you have lived with Autism for 8 1/2 years. You haven't.

You have never lived with Autism, and you certainly haven't lived with your daughter for 8 1/2 years, have you? You and your wife have been divorced for some years and Tuula only lives with you part time.

You lecture parents on your personal experience of living with autism, and yet you have no personal experience because you haven't lived with it. You give the impression that living with autism is almost a breeze, and yet when your daughter was a tiny infant and she cried you went to pieces, "things went weird" and you say you were "a complete mess".

Babies cry, David. And you couldn't even cope with that.

How on earth would you manage with a non-verbal child who screeches every three minutes of every day, year, after year, after year?

You are against any form of intervention and yet, face it David, if you really had a child with autism, and you were coping with a growing, non-compliant, non-verbal, violent child, and regularly scrubbing shit out of the carpet, I think you would be first in line for treatment and therapy.

You would, wouldn't you?

Be completely honest - for once."


At Thu Aug 23, 08:45:00 PM EDT, watson said...

“I guess if David Andrews doesn't come back to refute any of the points I've made, we can safely assume that they are all correct.

If he does, perhaps he could tell us more about his involvement in this which appeared to change the focus of Baron-Cohen's autism research from studying dysfunction of the amygdala and other abnormal regions of the brain and damage to the amygdala to devising tests for finding adults 'on the spectrum', and espousing absurd theories like "Have the airplane and the computer changed the architecture of the mind? And is that why autism is on the increase?"

Baron-Cohen is supportive of the Neurodiversity Movement, so I think it's very likely he believes in their philosophy, that autism is a healthy variation in neurological hardwiring which should be accepted and celebrated - and not treated or cured.

If that is so, why is he bothering to do autism research? Is there any point?"

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

"You have never lived with Autism, and you certainly haven't lived with your daughter for 8 1/2 years, have you? You and your wife have been divorced for some years and Tuula only lives with you part time."

GOOD GOD, DON'T YOU HAVE ANY DECENCY? WHAT TYPE OF DEPRAVED PERSON TALKS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S FAMILY SITUATION LIKE THIS?

a father said...

A depraved person lacking in answers to the real questions because deep down he knows he's full of shit and can't defend himself so he attacks first.

Anonymous said...

Father,
If Andrews isn't denying any of this, it must be true.

watson said...

"GOOD GOD, DON'T YOU HAVE ANY DECENCY?". WHAT TYPE OF DEPRAVED PERSON TALKS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S FAMILY SITUATION LIKE THIS?

Surely you're not saying that being divorced and sharing custody of a child is something to be ashamed of. What century do you live in?

I can't see how pointing out a deliberate deception can possibly be indecent.

alarm clock said...

I can't see how pointing out a deliberate deception can possibly be indecent.

By calling it a "deliberate deception". That's how, blind mouse! How are your two amigoes?

Anonymous said...

Surely you're not saying that being divorced and sharing custody of a child is something to be ashamed of. What century do you live in?

You know exactly what I meant, unless you have an inability to use inference.

People's family life deserves some privacy and common decency dictates that one does not bring in innocent parties such as a child and her mother.

What type of person speaks about another person's child in an argument between adults. Its not your place nor anyone's place to do that.

I use to feel sorry for the people on this blog but you all have some very serious psychological issues bordering on the psychotic and paranoid.

If you believe in God, there is certainly a circle of Hell reserved for people that do these things.

Arguing between adults about an idea is fair game, but to bring an innocent child into the debate is as low as it gets.

Megan said...

Anon,
I wish my father would stop using me to tout how beautiful autism is. Autism sucks, and that jackass won't even try to cure me. Just wait until I learn to talk so I can tell him what a horse's ass he is.

Anonymous said...

How exactly do you propose the child be left out of it? Mr. Andrews stated that he understands autism because he lives with an autistic child every day. When in fact he does not. If he had not put that information out there on the net, I doubt Watson would have known this. I suppose you feel it is fine for Mr. Andrews to bring his daughter into the conversation when it conveniences his end of the debate, and then the topic is off limits thereafter?

I suppose there is also a cirlce of hell for those who oppose finding a cure for autism.

watson said...

Exactly, Anon. David N. Andrews MEd (Distinction) talks about his "autie" daughter when it suits him.

watson said...

Anon, You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Some of the other points in my post are surely far more important than Andrews' "family situation".

"If you believe in God, there is certainly a circle of Hell reserved for people that do these things.

According to Dante, there is certainly a circle in Hell for falsifiers.

Anonymous said...

Megan: TYPE to him how much you think autism sucks.
Idiot.

a father said...

Anonymous said...
Father,
If Andrews isn't denying any of this, it must be true.

Tue Sep 04, 10:24:00 PM EDT

That is a baseless assumption which can't be said as "must be true". It's more likely he's walked away because of the malicious nature of the statements that have been made and any defense will just be twisted around like depraved people would do.

Megan said...

Anon,
Are you kidding? He'd just delete my comments.

Anonymous said...

A Father said...

It's more likely he's walked away because of the malicious nature of the statements that have been made and any defense will just be twisted around like depraved people would do.


Welcome back to the blog, Andrews.

Anonymous said...

Depraved doesn't even begin to describe you two.

This is about as bad as your post about how Bush was responsible for a developmentally delayed child being beaten to death by his parents.

You took that post down. Perhaps you should reconsider this one as well.

Fore Sam said...

Anon,
Bush IS responsible for everything that happens to every autistic child since he won't do a damn thing to help any of them and continues to allow his pals to cause autism all over the world. I think that post is still up.
Why would I want to remove anything that shows another neuroinsane nitwit to be a fraud?

BelchSpeak said...

Watson, way to Pwn David Andrews.

a father said...

Anonymous said...
Welcome back to the blog, Andrews.

I am not David Andrews.

watson said...

a father said...

"That is a baseless assumption which can't be said as "must be true". It's more likely he's walked away because of the malicious nature of the statements that have been made and any defense will just be twisted around like depraved people would do."

It is the Truth that has been twisted around to suit ND's agenda.

The depraved here are ND activists who pretend that an autism diagnosis is a cause for celebration, and show no compassion whatsoever for the disabled and their families.

Particularly damaging to individuals with autism are activists who give themselves credibility by continually displaying their credentials, and who deliberately mislead others into believing that they know all about autism because they themselves have Aspergers and they live 24/7/365 with an "autie".

I don't know why anyone should object to my mentioning David Andrews' daughter. Both Andrews and Kevin Leitch use their daughters to promote ND philosophy. Leitch even uses his daughter's beautiful appearance in his "Beautiful Autism" video, to give the impression to ignorant viewers that autism is beautiful.

Do you think it is ethical for parents to use their own children to sell an idea?

Fore Sam said...

Although Andrews is not man enough to show up here and answer this post, he is crying in other places as evidenced by this comment I found on Leech's blog.

David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) Says:

"September 9th, 2007 at 11:49:59
Every bit as much an arsehole as his boyfriend JBJr…."

If questioning David's credibility makes me an arsehole, that's fine; at least I'm not a liar whose obfuscation of the truth is harmful to children.

Anonymous said...

Particularly damaging to individuals with autism are activists who give themselves credibility by continually displaying their credentials

Yes, how supportive is it to individuals with a developmental disability to insinuate that they should have above average IQ. Most Aspie/Autie online support groups are so wrapped up in IQ they will not accept those they consider low functioning on the basis that they are "unintelligent". There is a large percentage of people with autism who are purported to have low IQ's. How supported do you suppose they feel in a group that expects high to genius IQ? In fact, Donna Williams mentions this in one of her articles in response to Aspies. She mentions that as an Autie she often feels left out as Aspies talk of their high IQ's. Autism has becom the only edevelopmental disability that doesn't actually support its disabled members and openly discriminates against the more disabled gaining membership. It has become an elitist internet cult instead.

Autism Pauper

watson said...

Autism Pauper, I don't know why Donna Williams should feel left out when Aspies talk about their high IQs because her IQ of "under 70" that she often refers to, she says on the other thread, "was not global", and her other scores were "in the genius range". If she feels left out, why doesn't she quote her genius IQ scores like the Aspies do? No one with an IQ in the retarded but 'educable' range could possibly attain an Honours Degree in Sociology, a degree in Linguistics and a postgraduate Diploma in Education or become a screenwriter, author of 9 published books including four text books, a renowned international public speaker, a qualified teacher, or an autism consultant.

You are right about Autism having become an elitist cult. Many, if not most of the members of the anti-cure organisations AFF and GRASP are self-diagnosed, and even the vast majority of the board members of GRASP were given their Aspergers diagnoses post-1999. Michael John Carley is no exception. It wasn't long after his diagnosis that he was asked to take over the Adult Asperger Syndrome Support Group of New York City, and within two years membership grew from 13 to 300. Then, in 2003, he became the executive director of the Global and Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership (GRASP) which was formed after a generous grant provided by the FAR Fund, created by an anonymous donor. Just like Neurodiversity.com, GRASP has a link to Quackwatch, and another to the Institute for Vaccine Safety which received start up financial support from vaccine manufacturers in 1997 and 1998.

On the other thread you asked when recruiting started. I believe self-recruiting to the cult began in earnest with Jasmine O'Neill's book, and when newspaper, magazine and online articles associating Bill Gates and Einstein with autism started appearing. It looks like the first one of those appeared in December 1999, but it might have been earlier that year. Then in 2000 Norm Ledgin's book "Diagnosing Jefferson" was published, and the article 'The Little Professor Syndrome' in the New York Times Magazine which must have drawn a sizeable number of self-identified Aspies, like Frank Klein.

Then in 2001 Baron-Cohen's AQ Test was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders which was followed by several articles with the AQ test attached such as "The Geek Syndrome", published in Wired (2001), and "Is there a Geek Syndrome" in The Globe and Mail (2002) which also appeared online. Self-recruitment to this elitist club spread amongst Geeks and Nerds.

In 2002 there was another book from Ledgin, "Asperger's and Self Esteem: Insight and Hope through Famous Role Models", adding Orson Welles, Marie Curie, Jefferson, Mozart, Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin and others to the growing list of successful people who 'might' have had Asperger's Syndrome.

In 2002 Edan Dagan, diagnosed with Aspergers the previous year, set up his Aspergia website, "with the mythical concept that those with Aspergers Syndrome are an ancient race of people," with "special powers". That idea must have been very appealing judging by the thousands who were drawn to his online community.

And then in April 2003, the New Scientist published an article "Einstein and Newton showed Signs of Autism", and, from the BBC "Einstein and Newton 'had autism': Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton may have suffered from a type of autism, according to experts." Simon Baron-Cohen was one of the "experts".

Shortly afterwards, many other famous people from history - scientists, authors, artists, poets and politicians, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Jane Austen, Michelangelo, Yates, and de Valera, were posthumously diagnosed with autism.

In 2004, AFF was set up by a 16 year-old boy named Gareth Nelson, diagnosed with Aspergers in 2002, and his middle-aged lover, Amy Roberts, after they'd found Dagan's site about Aspergia and "autistic culture". Autism experts Baron-Cohen and Tony Attwood have sent/send messages of support for the forum, and it was endorsed by Donna Williams, even though they must realise by now that many, if not most, of the members are self-diagnosed, and that people actually diagnosed with autism, particularly the lower-functioning types are not welcome. From what I have read, GRASP doesn't make them welcome either.

In the same year Kathleen Seidel's pro-vaccination site Neurodiversity.com was set up, which has recently been praised by Baron-Cohen in the British Medical Journal. He said, "I'm very impressed by the scholarship in the neurodiversity.com website".

Then along came Amanda Baggs to represent the lower-functioning end of the spectrum with her appearance on CNN and with her You tube videos amongst many other ND You tube videos, where any posters asking awkward questions, or not going along with ND philosophy, have their posts deleted and are permanently banned - while really offensive message stay up - no doubt to help the cause.

So when did autism become a cult? I believe it started when autism began to be associated with genius and success, "special powers" and gifts, and being "different" from ordinary people, which I think would appeal to many different groups: the mentally-ill, geeks, nerds, arty-types, the younger generation, and to many parents of difficult children. Also, "an Aspie" has a better ring to it than "Attention Deficit Disorder" or "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder", "Schizophrenic" or "psychotic".

Baron-Cohen's AQ test must have enlisted thousands upon thousands of individuals all over the world who now believe they are somewhere 'on the spectrum', and over the last few years parents of children with autism have also been encouraged to see autistic traits in themselves and other family members.

Sadly, I think we've lost sight of what Autism and Asperger's Syndrome used to be. Ten years ago, they were disabilities, and now anyone who has even mild traits can join the club and claim to "have autism" which apparently gives members a licence to bully the truly disabled and their families - like "David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)" does.

Joeker said...

Anonymous, I can't help but nod and agree. I've really seen this in action. The bad apples of the Aspies(there seem to be more than a couple) demand things, using the blanket term of "Autistic" to make themselves out to be more Autistic than they are, to play the system. No, they can't work, they can't get money, they can't do anything for themselves, if the government can do it for 'em.

They look down their noses at LFAs, they stereotype them, insult them, and try to keep them out of their fancy Forums and blogs.

It makes me sick.

They're happy to play "Autism Advocate" but "No LFAs Allowed!" is stuck to the door on their clubhouse.

Fore Sam said...

Watson,
I asked Andrews (on Joseph's blog) why he wouldn't respond to this criticism of him and all he could do was insult me a couple of times. That's probably the best we can expect from a guy who took 40 years to get through college.

Fore Sam said...

On Sept 6, Stephen Barrett posted the case of Redfoot vs B F Ascher on his Quackwatch site. On Sept 7, Kathleen Seidel posted the same thing adding her deranged slant to it. Does anyone think Barrett told Seidel to write her article to help publicize this case with some very questionable decisions by the judge?

watson said...

Fore Sam said...

"I asked Andrews (on Joseph's blog) why he wouldn't respond to this criticism of him and all he could do was insult me a couple of times."

John, I think one should expect more from a psychologist, but Andrews seems to resort to insults when anyone says or does anything he disagrees with.

I see he called JB Handley an arsehole for trying to give his daughter the best possible start in life. Few people consider the importance of good nutrition during pregnancy, or the impact of environmental toxins on their unborn child, and even fewer think about the effect of injected toxins on the developing immune system and brains of their babies after they are born. Judging by his reaction to Handley's post, I don't think Andrews gives these things any thought at all.

Fore Sam said...

Watson,
The good thing about Andrews being afraid to respond is that if anyone in Finland who considers becoming a client of his looks him up on the internet, this post will be there to explain to people what a nit wit Andrews is. That should help prevent him from causing harm to any children whose parents may unsuspectingly trust a child to his lunacy.

watson said...

I see that the above link to Handley's post doesn't work, so here it is:

http://www.rescuepost.com/rescue_post/2007/09/preventing-auti.html

Now why would anyone call a parent an arsehole for writing that?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why Handley should be called an arsehole. Being healthy during pregnancy is just good common sense. I do bedgrudgingly agree with something that K. Leitch said about the mom having a tough regimen to follow and the father having nothing to follow. I think that it would be prudent, when planning to concieve to take into account the condition of the sperm before conception and perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing to take some paternal precautions as well. It does sometimes feel like it is all up to the woman and that the mother bears the lion's share of the blame.