The American Taxpayer and Funding School and Adult Autism Services
By Anne Dachel
‘Should the Needs of Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few?’
About.com autism blogger Lisa Jo Rudy posed several questions on her blog recently that should have us all concerned. The first one was on November 14, 2010,
(Part One Should Normalcy Be our Goal? and then on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, came the second, Part 2.
Lisa Jo had two areas where she questioned the rights of the minority—one very closely tied to the rising cost of autism in our schools and one involving one of the most heated controversy in medicine today. Lisa Jo wrote, “In a world of limited resources and societal needs, logic dictates that the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few. But because our world is NOT logical, but instead is variously self-interested, compassionate and personal, the needs of the few (or the one) very often seem to outweigh the needs the many. Autism raises this issue over and over again, in many different ways - challenging our values, our expectations and our limits.”
She then went on to describe the huge costs of educating an autistic child, involving many more dollars per child. Is it fair that disabled students receive far more funds than ordinary students do?
Secondly, Lisa Jo tied this idea to growing number of parents who question vaccine safety and are opting out of vaccinating their children. Should parental rights take precedence even if by not vaccinating their children, they’re purported to pose a threat to “herd immunity”?
Lisa Jo wrote, “In the larger community, many families are convinced that vaccines are a major cause of an autism epidemic. This is the case despite reassurances from virtually all major medical institutions in the United States that there is no connection. As a result, many families are choosing not to vaccinate their children. According to medical authorities, it is critically important that a large majority of children are vaccinated for potentially injurious or deadly diseases in order to provide ‘herd immunity;’ too few, and those who are vaccinated may not receive sufficient protection. Yet parents are concerned that their choice to support the needs of the ‘herd’ could have a negative impact on the one (their own child).”
Lisa Jo, to her credit, asked this in two ways. She questioned the right of people to exempt at the expense of herd and at the same time she acknowledged that parents who vaccinate for the good of the herd could potentially have a child negatively impacted by the vaccines.
(I have to say that I strongly disagree that we should be reassured by Lisa Jo’s comment that “virtually all major medical institutions in the United States” deny a link between vaccines and autism. Seriously, Lisa Jo, have you ever looked at the vast web of pharma ties everywhere in the medical industry? Do you really think that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics or any major medical institution is going to suddenly announce that they’ve been damaging the health of our children by exposing them to more and more untested and unsafe toxic vaccines?)
Regardless, these questions are going to be asked more and more. First of all, doctors like Paul Offit are ranting about the potential loss of herd immunity as more and more parents learn about the hidden dangers in the ever-expanding vaccination schedule. They’re hearing about Hannah Poling, a young GA girl who regressed into autism after receiving nine vaccinations in one doctor’s visit (not unusual). It’s hardly reassuring that while health officials have no idea why one percent of our children have autism, they’re sure it’s not because of their vaccine schedule.
Personal, conscientious, or philosophical exemptions (whichever you want to call it) are allowed in a number of states. It’s easy to do. Just sign the back of the vaccine requirement card.
It’s seen as a personal right of a parent to say what can be injected into their child.
But many question the right of a parent to exercise this right. By not vaccinating, they say, these parents are putting other children at risk of contracting a disease.
The other question is one that’s going to have deep implications in the not-too-distant future. Right now it involves schools. Autistic kids cost a lot more to educate and with almost a million of these students in the U.S., all schools are struggling to provide a free and appropriate education. These costs show no signs of abating. So what will school officials do when the special ed costs are so bankrupting that to provide for them, they have to reduce funding for the regular ed classrooms? How will general education parents react?
The mounting cost of autism
Proof of just how serious this is comes from CA. On November 12, 2010, ABC 7 in San Francisco ran this story with a video, Special ed students could bankrupt districts (HERE) That title wasn’t an exaggeration. Costs are skyrocketing and while the federal government mandates services for disabled students, they don’t pay all of their share. This real issue here is autism as ABC 7 reported,
“The budget problems facing schools across California are getting even worse. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of special education students in recent years and the added cost of teaching them could bankrupt some school districts.
‘In 2002, our unfunded special ed costs were about $170,000, this school year it's $3,200,000,’ district spokesperson Deborah Toups said.
“The Franklin-McKinley School District in San Jose says if the trend continues it will bankrupt districts.
“As a result, more money is being taken from the general fund. And districts admit, because the federal funds are not there, not everyone is implementing these special education services effectively, so many parents like LaPides opt for non-public schools which are privately operated.”
“Parents and school districts agree as the number of children with autism increases, Congress must come to terms with the fact that the demand for more services will drain school budgets even more.”
Nowhere in the report from ABC 7 were we told why autism is increasing. It seems we’re just supposed to accept that autism happens and the schools must deal with the numbers.
On November 14, 2010, the Santa Clarita CA Signal had this story, Funding shortfalls plague special education (HERE)
Under “Increasing need,” we were told, “The biggest growth in special-needs students in the Santa Clarita Valley and statewide has been among those diagnosed with autism.”
Not to worry however, because the Signal assured us that the soaring increase can be explained. One local educator said,
“‘The medical profession is doing more and more to save babies who would not have survived 30 years ago.’
“In addition, parents are generally more aware and involved in their students’ learning than were parents decades ago…
“In December 2009, the valley had 758 students with autism, a big jump from the 214 students with autism in 2002, according to figures from the Santa Clarita Valley Special Education Local Plan Area.”
Families may also be moving to the area because of the services Santa Clarita provides. The gist of the story was that all the autism can be easily explained.
On November 16, 2010 CBS 2 News in New York had this video, NYS Board Of Regents Strikes Down Autism Mandates (HERE). Those mandates included required daily speech therapy for autistic children in New York schools. Suddenly, the help is gone.
Autism funding stories like these are constantly in the news. One recent one from Michigan is very enlightening. November 16, 2010, the Sentinel in Holland, MI had this editorial,
“Mandating insurers to cover autism would be a costly mistake.” The unnamed “guest” editorial writer wrote this,
“The House legislation would require that all health insurance policies cover treatment for autism. The policies would have to offer coverage with dollar limits, co-pays and deductibles that are identical to coverage for physical illness, with the exception of a treatment called applied behavior analysis, which would be limited to $50,000 per year. But there could be limits on how many times an insured person could visit an autism treatment provider.
“Obviously, this could be an extremely expensive mandate.”
We were told about why MI shouldn’t pass this. The concern was over saving money, not over autism. Autism was never really talked about. I never stop wondering when the public will ask whywe’re always talking about children when the subject is autism. Articles about autistic adults are rare, certainly nothing in comparison to those about autistic children.
I’m always amazed that no one is alarmed about all these special needs kids and where they’re going to end up someday. The simple fact that children like this weren’t around 25 years ago should have everyone demanding to know why. For years officials at the Centers for Disease and Prevention have pretended that it was acceptable to have a soaring rate for autism. It was all supposed to be due to doctors suddenly waking up to the autism that’s always been here, just unrecognized. Their pet phrase was “better diagnosing.” They coudn’t wait to announce their latest find on the endless search for the genetic cause of autism.
Now that the rate has reached one percent of children, almost two percent of boys, even the CDC can’t continue to claim that nothing is wrong. Now they’re reluctantly admitting that some of the increase (no one knows for sure how much) is due to environmental causes. No one has a clue what the trigger/triggers might be—there are just too many toxic chemicals kids are being exposed to currently to know for sure.
I’ll take that a step forward and ask what the future holds as more and more autistic children age into adulthood and eventually need to be cared for at the taxpayers’ expense. No one ever wants to talk about this critical issue. Many experts who until recently denied that there were more children with autism today than there were 50 or 100 years ago, are now acknowledging that that there is a real increase in the number. They’re still clueless as to what in the environmental trigger might be. Nonetheless, no one is worried about the future. And no one is preparing for the future either. This is why I’m very sure that health officials will still be scratching their collective heads over autism as hundreds of thousands of these children turn into adults with no place to go. I’m pretty sure it’ll fall to the states to deal with this disaster.
All of these stories show that the autism community has been right all along, despite years of denials from health officials and the medical community. Autism is a devastating, new condition and no one is doing anything to stop it. The whole idea that hundreds of thousands of autistic Americans will be entering adulthood and that no one seems concerned leaves me scared to death. I’ve never heard a single federal health official ever talk about what we’re going to do for adults with autism.
Dr. Paul Offit, the vaccine inventor who’s spent years in the limelight telling us autism is nothing new, is never asked why no one has been able to show us a significant population of autistic adults. And by that I don’t mean the Temple Grandins of the world. I want to see adults who display the same signs of full-blown autism like we see in hundreds of thousands of our children. These kids are everywhere. So where are the 40, 60, and 80 year olds just like them?
And if we can’t find them, then we really have a problem on our hands.
(And please don’t anyone tell me that kids will outgrow their symptoms. I now personally know far too many people with autism who are leaving high school and their symptoms show no signs of going away.)
This brings me back to Lisa Jo’s original question about funding regular ed or special ed. To many autism parents, that is a scary topic. Is the issue, Who is more deserving of funding? Will there come a time in a depressed economy when we’ll have to choose?
The costly needs of hundreds of thousands of autism spectrum kids aren’t going away. In fact, we’re barely begun paying for autism. The real cost will soon be upon us as these kids enter adulthood. Right now, most of their support and care comes from their families and it’s shocking to hear about the thousands of dollars in annual costs per child. For lifetime care, the amount will be in the millions---for each individual. Dr. Thomas Insel, head of the National Institute of Mental Health, announced this past year at the National Institutes of Health, (HERE), that eighty percent of Americans with autism are under the age of 18.
Lisa Jo’s question about serving either the educational needs of the many or the costly few isn’t going away, only it’s going to be expanded beyond just school costs. Since children will naturally become adults, does anyone think this presents a problem? From the coverage it’s been given, you wouldn’t think so.
Consider these stories:
Back in May, 2010, the Washington Post had this story: (HERE)
Fairfax: Autism, not 'baby boomers,' biggest future health challenge. “The wave of aging ‘baby boomers’ needing public health services in Northern Virginia -- once thought to be the greatest healthcare and fiscal threat facing local governments in the coming decades -- will be far outnumbered by the skyrocketing percentage of young adults with autism diagnoses Local government officials are worried about the number of autistic students in VA schools and what this mean for the future. “The county's 65-and-older population will reach 138,000 by 2020, but that the population of young adults with autism is growing at a far faster rate.”
This is the kind of story that should be talked about in Washington and Atlanta. Elected officials and health experts should be making plans to care for a generation of autistic adults. Sadly, they’re not.
Autism is coming.
We’re all so used to hearing about kids with autism. Their stories are everywhere. Search Google News for “autism” and you’ll find lots of innocuous articles about bowling for autism, fund raising walks for autism, and reports about the latest research on the elusive autism gene/genes. These are pieces I call “feel good stories about autism.” They lull the public into thinking that experts are working diligently to unravel the autism mystery and that the needs of autistic individuals are being met. Neither of course is actually happening in the real world.
As the autism tsunami approaches, the economy is facing huge challenges.
This editorial from Ann Arbor, MI by State Rep Kathy Angerer reveals what the crisis is like for her state: (HERE) “When I began serving in the Legislature five years ago, approximately 10,000 children in Michigan had autism. Today, the Michigan Department of Education estimates that autism affects more than 15,000 children.”
“Early intervention allows more children to function independently as they reach adulthood, which would save the state an average of $2 million over the life of each child with autism. This will allow many to secure employment and live independently as adults instead of relying on state and federal programs like job training, Medicaid, and adult day care.
“To date, 23 states have passed autism coverage reform legislation. Leaders across the country are recognizing and correcting the injustice of denying coverage to children and families affected by autism.”
As scary as hearing that in five years there are 5,000 more autistic children in MI is not seeing any explanation for the increase. What if there are 7,000 more children in another five years?
Finally USA TODAY reminded us about another tsunami approaching….Monday, Nov 15, they ran the story Senior boom begins amid economic bust (HERE). It was all about the impact of the retiring post World War II generation. One historian described this group as one "which reversed a long decline in the American birth rate and became ...the single greatest demographic event in U.S. history."
“...As they've moved through the years like a demographic pig in a python, the 77 million Baby Boomers have redefined each stage of life, says Ken Dychtwald, an expert on generational change. And, he predicts, they will change the next stage, too.
“But how will a generation defined by its youthfulness and optimism deal with old age and hard times?
“Raised in affluent times and imbued with high expectations, the first Boomers now face the ironic prospect of longer yet crimped lives. Their homes and savings are worth less than a few years ago, and health care and energy cost more.”
This left me wondering what impact the critical needs of disabled adults with autism would have on social services at the same time retired Americans will have to be provided for. Those young adults will never have worked and paid into Social Security. They won’t have stocks, pensions, 401Ks or IRAs. They won’t have equity in a home. They’ll be totally dependent on the taxpayers, and no one even realizes they’re coming.
Lisa Jo is asking about sharing school funding with autistic students. The question is up in the air. We’re asked for our opinion. It’s conceivable that a lot of people may feel that providing for regular education classes is the most efficient and prudent use of limited resources.
My worst fear is that the main topic of autism will soon concern not services for children, but instead it will be about paying for fulltime care for autistic adults. Will editorials be warning about the cost and urging lawmakers to cut services? Will there be cold, rational choices or will people call for help for the many disabled adults?
I’m always amazed that so few news stories on autism actually acknowledge the depth of suffering and struggle individuals with autism and their families face. We’re forever being told that autism causes a “lack of communication skills and an inability at social interaction.” I’d love to make a list of the kinds of problems autism parents face everyday, all day.
Would there be this kind of haggling over how much we’re willing to do if the problem were some other disability? Imagine calls to limit help for blind or deaf kids. Would the needs of the many be considered more important than making life livable for a child who couldn’t hear or see? That idea conjures up images from a Charles Dickens novel.
We need to remember that autism became an epidemic without any national outcry for answers. We’ve been continually told that what we need is awareness and acceptance for autism. So what will the future hold? Will more and more stories be asking Lisa Jo’s question? And what answer will there be?
--
Anne Dachel is Media Editor of Age of Autism.
Louis;
To get your answer for really for sure answer; go to your local board of education.
Ask for their director of special education department.
Ask those folks how it goes, has the need for special education gone up or down. Their answer is up - I know.
If you want a job in education right now every teaching postions is filled to the brim and is super competive, except for special education teachers. Those teachers they hunt for, seek after. Not only that but there is a new type of teacher now - one who goes back to school if they want a job and learn how to teach those kids with behovioral problems (because there are tons of them).
Posted by: Benedetta | July 06, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Louis
This is really not a credible hypothesis. Apart from anything else given the medical/psychiatric imperative to explain the present situation away as normal, the failure to locate or re-diagnose all these adults is signal. Sure, some cases do come to light but not in the numbers necessary.
I remember when my son was entering the local system in the late 90s we had about 100 cases in the primary school system and less than 10 in the secondary (although the scondary system was being monitored by the same agencies - and despite the fact that divergencies, wretchedness and the disruption just gets greater as the children get older). So, I don't think so. And I am disturbed at the way the powers that be were already covering it up at the time. This was of course an epoch when the back wards of our psychiatric hospitals were already closed.
Posted by: John Stone | July 06, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Louis - studies have been done that show the increase is real and not the result of changing labels.
If we've always had a population of 1 in 88 then we'd have many, many more state institutions and group homes in place right now. We don't. Wouldn't there also be a family on every block with an adult family member with autism also? Not on our block but there are elementary school aged boys that have autism.
In the 70's in my small hometown there were 2 siblings with Down's Syndrome. Another student from a neighboring school district that had Downs Syndrom was bused to our school. That was it. In a high school of 400 kids, there were 3 kids with Downs Syndrome. No non-verbal, self-mutalating teenagers in diapers. None. If they've been here all along there should have been at least 4. No kids like this being kept hidden at home or sent to a state institution - you can't keep a secret like that in a small town.
Posted by: For Louis | July 06, 2012 at 07:24 PM
To answer the author's question on where are the 40 - 80 year old persons with low functioning autism, my bet is that they are in either state institutions, group homes, or dead. Most probably do not have a diagnosis anyways because terms such as "mental retardation" were more popular in the 40s - 70s so there is not much documentation if any.
In fact, I ask in return, has the number of people labeled "mentally retarded" or using today's term, cognitively delayed gone down? If so, they I think we might have our answer.
Posted by: Louis | July 06, 2012 at 04:57 PM
None of you are addressing the real question - "should" and "can" we afford the expensive treatment of special needs children (whether autism or anything else)?
The very simple issue is cost per child, per school year. The cost of a special needs child is sometime 3-5 times that of non special needs. As state budgets are dwindling, this becomes a real question.
There is an argument (and a good one) that spending an exorbitant percentage of a budget on very few children (and lets put aside if this educational spending leads to productive citizens) is unfair.
Every child has a right to an education...but, that does not mean that every child has a right to an expensive education.
Posted by: Icarus | January 06, 2011 at 06:46 AM
Yes, Twyla:
I too have rethought this and you are right!
The way she said it sounds so terrible that it does awaken many to what is happening.
It is a shocker to say that some are being shamelessly scarficed for the good of the majority.
This would be hard to swallow for the American People, and perhaps awaken them of them to what is going on!
Posted by: Benedetta | December 03, 2010 at 06:51 PM
Twyla,
I agree with you regarding trying to educate her audience - and I think that your comments on her blog may actually convince some of her them. I think they were excellent. I was objecting to the description of Ms. Rudy as "sitting on the fence". I apologize if my comment was unclear.
Posted by: Carolyn M | December 03, 2010 at 03:59 PM
Autism insurance coverage dies in Michigan Senate
http://www.necn.com/12/03/10/Autism-insurance-coverage-dies-in-Michig/landing.html?&blockID=3&apID=5de74697b7b44ad7ac7f1b781061d1c3
Posted by: Andrea | December 03, 2010 at 09:48 AM
Carolyn M, my point was that regardless of anyone's opinion of Lisa Jo Rudy, it is a chance to express our opinions and experiences. It doesn't make sense to only preach to the choir.
Posted by: Twyla | December 02, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Carolyn M;
I agree with you, that she is not really raising the question; and if she IS - well they are not the right questions anyway!
Posted by: Benedetta | December 02, 2010 at 08:20 PM
I don't really believe that Ms. Lisa Jo Rudy is sitting on the fence. I think it is more likely that she is sitting on the fence's gate - and that the gate has swung open and stopped on the side of the vaccine proponents (ie. Offit).
Some of her audience may be able to be convinced of the effectiveness of biomedical interventions to improve the health and functioning of children with autism, but from reading her post and associated comments it would appear that she has a firmly closed mind.
I also take issue with the negative tone of her post directed toward children with autism who need more accommodations in order to learn. This is shown by her use of the phrase "catering to" when she was referring to those children with autism who are "placed in a private school catering to their special needs, almost always paid for by the school district." The phrase she used has very negative connotations - if she wanted a more neutral phrasing she could have used "accommodating", for example. I dealt with the issue of who pays in a previous comment, so I will not revisit it.
I do not believe that she merely raised the questions.
Posted by: Carolyn M | December 02, 2010 at 07:05 PM
Hans:
Excellent point!
Exactly!
Posted by: Benedetta | December 02, 2010 at 05:55 PM
This is a very good and thorough article.
Suppose that one could stop autism immediately. One would still have about a million persons to care for, a considerable burden even for a rich country like the US.
But the real problem would be to keep the taxes flowing so one can pay for the whole mess. This means that the country will need BRIGHT students who can get and hold good jobs and do what the universities and firms expect from them.
But autism is a disease that destroys the brains to a larger or smaller degree, and you cannot make a lot of money even if you are "neurotypical" but on the dumb side! And it appears that the universities are longing for unvaccinated, home-schooled students because these are the only ones that can be used as teaching aids, e.g. for running seminars and the like that are traditionally run by older students.
This will be the big problem of the future: Huge outlays for young men and women with autism, and not enough tax money to pay for them since their age mates are not so clever either and also damaged by the countless vaccines given to them when they were young and vulnerable.
Herd stupidity is not the answer.
Hans
Posted by: Hans RAIBLE | December 02, 2010 at 03:23 PM
I wish some parents of vaccine injured children with autism would post your stories and/or opinions at the Autism.About.com site here:
http://autism.about.com/u/ua/vaccinesandautism/Vaccines-Cause-Autism-Do-You-Believe-Vaccines-Cause-Autism.htm
per Lisa Jo Rudy's suggestion in her comment below on 11/29 @ 9:48 p.m.
I think it is so important to tell these stories over and over again in as many places as possible. We need to let the world know that this is not just a matter of "coincidence" and not so very rare either.
I have been posting comments regularly at Lisa Jo's blog on Autism.About.com because it is a chance to share information with people who may not already agree -- including readers and About.Com editors/staff. It's easy to criticize Lisa Jo for sitting on the fence, but I think it is also important to keep talking to people who are not already convinced of the problems with our vaccine program, and of the need to investigate biomedical causes and treatments for autism.
P.S. Thanks for an excellent article, Anne!
Posted by: Twyla | December 02, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Regarding placement of children with autism in private schools, at least where I live it is not "almost always" at school district expense. If the IEP team agrees that the public school system cannot meet the needs of the child and places that child in a private school, then the school district goes to a county agency for funding. Only if the county agency does not approve the request for funding does the school district end up paying for the private placement.
Posted by: Carolyn M | December 01, 2010 at 07:56 PM
Really great article! Here are my opinions:
1. When big numbers of ASD kids age nobody will care about them except their families AND the kids who recovered from autism and have grown up. These people will be their biggest advocates because they are the only ones who understand how hellish it is to live with autism in your body.
2. The numbers right now are higher than 1/100. There are a lot of kids walking around without a diagnosis. I am not sure we can call them the few. By the next generation it will be hard to find families where someone isn't affected by autism or related disorders.
3. Autism is a very curable medical disorder. Many kids have recovered with a GFCF diet and other biomedical interventions. Other children have not responded to these interventions and there are not enough people who are trying hard enough to find medical treatments that will work for the others. DAN doctors are not doing enough good research and mainstream medicine does only garbage research and parents of ASD kids aren't fighting for more because they are tired and have become too passive from being told so many times that there is no hope. If all this were to change cures would be found pretty soon.
Posted by: opinionatedmom | November 30, 2010 at 08:06 PM
Just like in those old Westerns, it’s time to “circle the wagons”. To a large extent complacency on the topic of the undeniable holocaust of vaccine-induced diseases, implicates us and condemns us to a miserable fate.
Vaccines are impure! This is an undeniable fact! Both spiritually and corporeally, vaccines are impure. They are a “gemisch” of multiple toxins, a literal toxic cocktail.
http://www.know-vaccines.org/wp/PDF/DangerousImpurities.pdf
What happened to our morality and religious values? Why is the church so conspicuous in its silence? Where is the morality in eating cloned food, and receiving inoculations of non-human DNA and aborted fetal tissue?
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/abortedtissue.htm
More physicians need to speak out! The church needs to take a position! There’s no middle ground here.
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/Vaccination_UnGodly_Practice.html
VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
MAKE AUTISM STOP
MEDICAL FREEDOM NOW
END MEDICAL FASCISM NOW
Posted by: patrons99 | November 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Re the cost of adults and autism:
In almost a year of being 'in the system' with the Dept of Rehab, my son has received nothing except two time extensions - their request. When we ask "What can you do to help Jeremy reach his employment/work goal?," They reply "What do you want us to do?"
The higher ups in the system I have contacted have told me what they should be able to propose/suggest. But the person that is in charge of Jeremy's case has done nothing and not even mentioned any of these possibilities, neither has that person's supervisor.
And this is about getting Jeremy to earn $$ so he can pay for part of his living expenses and be less a burden to the taxpayers over time. Isn't that what Dept of Rehab is supposed to do?
I know Jeremy will be OK as long as I am alive to get the info we need and fight the battles to get what he is allowed to have to improve his independence and make him a more productive citizen - his goal.
But it should not be so hard for people trying to earn a living. How do people who have less time and knowledge get anywhere when the Dept of Rehab is not even up for the challenge? How is a person with AS who is trying on his own to advocate get anywhere with such agencies?
I'm sure there are some success stories around and some areas and counselors may be better. But it shouldn't be this hard for people trying to earn their keep.
Posted by: chantal Sicile-Kira | November 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Lisa Jo is "just asking the questions?" Lisa, how much do you get paid for asking them? The questions are loaded and designed to create bias at the very least.
Anne, you must keep asking the real questions, there are few in the community who have our injured children's interests at heart. Thank you for your work.
Posted by: poinsettia | November 30, 2010 at 09:42 AM
I think the "Howdy" and "Anyhoo" defines the intelligence of Lisa Jo and her obnoxious passive aggressive style. She is a ND creep whose own son is very high functioning. I stopped reading that blog long ago because she and the people who follow her were too ignorant to take anymore.
Posted by: mercury damage is real | November 30, 2010 at 09:38 AM
I don't quite care if people on Lisa Jo's blog "think" vaccines cause autism or not. It's not really a matter of people's opinions one way or another. What matters is the science. The research to date favors a link. I really couldn't give two poops what some guy in podunk usa, who happens upon about.com "thinks" causes autism. Just the fact that Lisa Jo is having this survey with comments goes to show that she only cares about traffic on her blog.
Posted by: Kristine | November 30, 2010 at 02:22 AM
I am just starting to find out if there are Services available for my 18 year old daughter diagnosed with PDD NOS Autism and Manic Behavior and running into alot of forms to fill out and alot of redtape. People question you like you are a criminal and then I set the form aside and try and get enough courage to try and ask again. We need more people to get the awareness out there because these 1 in 110 kids are starting to age out of the school system and there is nothing out there for them to go to to get the services they need. Born 1992 Healthy 1999 PDD NOS Autism My child your child when will it be their child.
Thanks Age of Autism for all the help you have given me along the way with Our Autism Journey.
Posted by: Donna Barber Minnesota Autism Parent | November 29, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Thank you, Anne. Well done though a hard topic to tackle.
It needs to come down to injury and responsibility. The Lisa Jo's of the world have chosen to deny and disregard the true facts and science. How and why she does what she does will be determined later but the bigger issue is to continue letting John Q Public and everyone know that autism is a man-made disease and ownership of it rests solely on those who have contributed to its rise, then and now.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | November 29, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Howdy folks. I thank you, Anne, for referencing my blog, and for your thoughtful editorial. I have to say I don't quite understand why asking the questions qualifies me for being worse than a Nazi...
Anyhoo, on a related note, readers of AofA may want to know that, just today, I posted a blog called "Do You Believe Vaccines Cause Autism?" In fact, it isn't much of a blog post: it's simply an invitation for readers to express their opinions by responding via a template at http://autism.about.com/u/ua/vaccinesandautism/Vaccines-Cause-Autism-Do-You-Believe-Vaccines-Cause-Autism.htm.
Once approved, all responses become a part of the About.com site, and are searchable through Google.
You should know that, while I must moderate all responses (that's how the About.com system is set up), I do not censor submissions on the basis of anyone's opinion. In fact, that's my policy for the blog, as well (as some of you are already aware). My only expectation is that contributors to the blog comments or the site refrain from flaming or attacking anyone personally.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Lisa Jo Rudy
Posted by: Lisa | November 29, 2010 at 09:48 PM
"Yet parents are concerned that their choice to support the needs of the ‘herd’ could have a negative impact on the one (their own child).”
This statement is so disengenuous. Parents don't vaccinate their kids to support the needs of the herd. They do it because they think their child needs it! I hate when they act like we're not vaccinating out of self-interest but the parents who vaccinate are thinking of everyone else. BULLSHIT!
Posted by: Lori B. | November 29, 2010 at 09:38 PM
My response to all this is somewhat biased because I have six children, aged 17 to 5, with the ASD. With that said, the problem of the ability to pay for the needs of Autistic children now and in the future will, I'm afraid to say, fall on the parents or current caregivers.
If we wait or expect for help from the government, insurance companies or possibly relatives; we will be disappointed and our children will be left wanting.
This is a BIG problem that will not go away.
Parents especially need a plan of action to insure a good quality of life for their children. We need to help each other by combining our knowledge, talents and support for each other.
We need to develop business and revenue creation ideas to come up with vast sums of money. Be entrepreneurs and do a lot of 'out of the box' thinking.
Posted by: John Kirton | November 29, 2010 at 07:59 PM
I agree that the media discussion, not to mention the national (in)action, does not go near where it responsibly should.
It's kind of like watching the neurons of the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot having a nice little discussion over whether or not it's worth paying for ointment for the poor cells overheating in the extremities, all while comfortably ignoring the signals that they need to fire up the leg muscles, jump out, and then begin worry about administering the ointment.
Posted by: JenB | November 29, 2010 at 07:10 PM
Thank you for your post Anne, and bringing awareness to the improperly informed and downright dangerous notions spewing forth from Lisa Jo.
Maybe something that should be more carefully considered is what if the science behind current accepted understanding of herd immunity is wrong? Saying something really strongly and from different angles as Lisa Jo does, does not indeed make it any more true, nor any more false than it already is.
It would be really neat if journalism was revived and good investigative medical reporters would actually be uncovering and questioning the prevailing understanding or misunderstanding of how scientifically accurate is herd immunity?
I believe it this was done, and what would be uncovered might be shocking if it was ever properly and analyzed in the name of truth and good science.
Too many holes in the straw foundation of vaccine science in my opinion. And current propaganda of the science of herd immunity is as shaky as the notion that any form of mercury could become a safe adjuvant in a vaccine.
Until real truth in vaccine science has begun (which as most of the readers of Age of A know, it has not yet since there have not been and are no plans to have vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations properly studied on a wide scale) society can not quite yet justify closing the door on more vulnerable populations under the guise that it is better science and for "greater good" to do so, because beyond a humanitarian and spiritual level they will be surprised to find out that it is not even or the greater good - if you look at the big picture rather than one narrow disconnected view.
In The Biology of Belief, Bruce Lipton does a great job explaining the inaccuracies and dangers to the "stronger" members of society that come from continuing to ascribe to the model of Darwinist determinism - a model which has since been more accurately remodeled , but we just don't get those stories too much in the media, and doctors are not jumping on quantum science as much as it upends what their practices and knowledge is predicated on.
To Lisa Jo and those who ascribe to a similar philosophy, I hope you are ready to make a retraction and mea culpa when you find out how wrong you are and how much unnecessary damage you are actually unitentionally causing in the name of the "greater good".
Posted by: Jean | November 29, 2010 at 07:00 PM
We are part of the very fortunate group whose child responded well to biomedical. Due to stopping vaccinations, GFCF, methyl-B12, digestive support, and amino acids, our son is now doing great. He’s in a regular class, social, with only limited special ed that is being phased out. Biomed parents have been compared to Dr. Frankenstein by the medical establishment, conducting unethical experiments on our children. The ND crowd likes the Hitler comparison; our efforts are compared to trying to change someone’s skin color. It turns out that biomed is probably the only thing that can save the educational system from bankruptcy.
Since those in charge don’t seem to care that it brings our children back to us, maybe the fact that it saves them a few bucks will get their attention.
Posted by: Jeff C. | November 29, 2010 at 04:08 PM
Well, if everyone continues to vaccinate like crazy, it won't be long before "the few" aren't "the few" anymore. But she does want everyone to continue vaccinating like crazy. She can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Kristina | November 29, 2010 at 03:12 PM
I guess, ultimately, this is what must occur before the general red-alert is sounded and this nation understands the threat it is facing.
All the CDC press embargos, Paul Offitts, and squelched advertisements in the world won't amount to much when the entire system is thrown into economic crisis.
Posted by: Victor | November 29, 2010 at 01:44 PM
Thank you Anne. The problems outlined here are at least in part, what happens when a neurological condition like autism is seen as a "learning disability', rather than a illness or disease. I have seen parents express "Why shouldn't my kid get as much money spent on his education?" numerous times, yet, I never see anyone say "Why does the heath care system spend thousands of dollars on your child with cancer, when my child gets nothing spent on him just because he's healthy?" That would seem mean-spirited and hateful. We need to look at this as a health care crisis. Not an education crisis. As long as the medical system can shrug their shoulders and say "It's the school systems problem," we are screwed.
Posted by: Nancy Naylor | November 29, 2010 at 01:03 PM
Oh and has anyone else noticed that some of the worst backlash actually *comes* from parents of children with non-autism disabilities? They are pissed that their kid will not get as many services because there are too many autistic kids. They are tired of all of the focus, and funding (what a joke), being on autism. There was a recent question on wrightslaw blog that went something like "my child has dyslexia and I'm angry that all of the focus is put on students with autism" and then the poster went on to talk about how children with dyslexia can be helped- I guess we are to assume that children with autism are worthless and cannot be helped.
Posted by: Kristine | November 29, 2010 at 12:40 PM
I'd give up every service ever offered my severely autistic son (granted not that many) if the government would just spend all of its autism dollars on research on cause, prevention, cure. I will remove him from public school, give back his medicaid waiver, and never use another public dollar for him. No more useless studies on robots, infant diagnosis, SSRIs, sensory experiences, infant sibs, parent MRIs, fragile x. All research proposals should be evaluated on that criteria- you promoting cure or not? No more money should be spent on "awareness" and "acceptance"- clearly THAT didn't work- now we just have backlash, which will only get worse once the magnitude of the problem is realized. There will not be a magical day when people wake up- there is no number that freaks people out. There is only backlash. The fact is, my child is 6 years old, and he will NEVER get adult services from any govt- state or fed. It's really not a matter of compassion or any other feeling. It's simply not possible with the numbers today. Prevention, cure- that is our only hope.
Posted by: Kristine | November 29, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Anne--
One answer to the questions raised by Lisa Jo's us-versus-them, "Final Solution" post has been provided by the state of Georgia, where by official decree a diagnosis of Asperger's no longer qualifies a child for special services in public schools.
An official decree from the Dept. of Education. Just like that and all those kids lost services and Asperger's children coming in need not apply.
In a country whose national faith is the greed of capitalism, a column like Lisa Jo's and its clearly implied solution should come as no surprise, especially to this community.
Posted by: David Taylor | November 29, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Well, the question about the needs of the few vs. the needs of the many is becoming obsolete as the autistic community becomes very very MANY. When autism affects 50 percent, will that question at least be answered?
Posted by: Joanna | November 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Anne,
When all is said and done, the shoulder-shrugging approach of Lisa's post that continues to add speed and height to the coming tidal wave will be Chapter 2 in the book of "How Could This Have Happened."
Lisa's characterization of the issue of paying the cost of autism as a "question" is terrifying to me in its implications. But at least its honest.
And I am glad that your insightful post acknowledges that there is more than a subtle undertone of resentment from the general populace toward autism.
Sorry to all those who believe in the inherent goodness of the American people, but I frequently get the "I wish this would just go away" vibe from parents even when vaccines are not being discussed!
Disability is something people try not to think about and autism simply doesn't allow that as EVERYONE now knows someone whose children are autistic. And the response by many parents is to wonder why they always have to hear about "those kids."
Of course Chapter 3 of the book will examine the complete failure of the media to act in the public interest, failing to ask even the most rudimentary of questions to the continued bureaucratic doublespeak and maneuvering (18 controlled studies, may not be an epidemic, might be genetic, the frequent quoting of Offit without any mention of his conflict of interest).
Still, like you, I wonder when the bill comes due, what will the general public's reaction be toward "those kids" who will soon be "those adults"?
I suppose then we'll get to see just how compassionate a culture we live in.
Posted by: Victor | November 29, 2010 at 10:54 AM
She is asking the wrong questions.
She is asking questions from the same 40 year old point of view.
It shouldn't be that we are willing to sacrifice some children for the good of others and that is just the way it is.
That even sounds wrong and evil when it is said like that isn't it?
That is because it is.
The question should be why these kids are reacting to their vaccines, and what can the medical society do to stop the reaction or to know who will react.
Posted by: Benedetta | November 29, 2010 at 09:55 AM
These questions disturb me. A civilization is defined by it's weakest members. Compassion for others should not be something that should be put aside because it costs to much!
We are here now, that is simply fact. Our numbers grow all the time. Society can't just simply throw us under the bus!! Particularly since they are the ones who did this to us in the first place!!
We didn't ask to have autism! We have hopes and dreams like everyone else, and we should have the opportunities to persue them like everyone else! My having AS does not make me any less of a human being.
Instead of throwing us under the bus, they should be concentrating on stopping what is making us this way in the first place!! That will be more productive in the end!
Posted by: Theodora Trudorn | November 29, 2010 at 09:53 AM
I have stopped reading Lisa Jo Rudy's blog at About.com. She is a thinly-veiled neurodiverse advocate. She may put up a pretense of journalistic balance... but it's just for show. You should check her friends list on Facebook... it's a who's who of the neurodiverse movement. Or heck, read the commentaries on her articles and her responses.
I don't think she should be reporting on behalf of this community. She has a strong bias with no command on the medical issues facing our children.
Posted by: Erik Nanstiel | November 29, 2010 at 09:12 AM
Self-interest is what will finally cause the average citizen to demand to know why there are so many kids with autism. Property taxes are the "hook" by which to involve our audience. If each of us had a well designed, hard-hitting presentation that we could take to our school boards and local politicians, I think that would have a huge impact. Could GR put something together, that we could download and use individually? Most of us are too tired, overwhelmed, and stretched to create something like that from scratch, but if a template was available, I bet many would be motivated to use it.
Posted by: introvert | November 29, 2010 at 09:12 AM
Lisa Jo's article reads like it's right out of Nazi Germany... only worse. Read up on what happened to the disabled children there and you know where this is headed. Thanks Lisa Jo for essentially calling kids with autism useless eaters. Shame on you for taking part in this. Sickening.
Posted by: Mary | November 29, 2010 at 08:55 AM
Very important post, Anne. There is a new populism to the holocaust of vaccine-induced diseases.
“Oh...he’s got that popular thing...autism.”
Dr. Maurice Hilleman, who developed the Mumps, Rubella and Measles vaccines, said: “Vaccines are the bargain basement technology of the 20th century.”
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/what-is-in-your-vaccine/1898/
An entire segment of the population is now considered to be “expendible”: the ageing “baby boomers” and the vaccine-injured generation of ASD, bipolar, schizophrenia, ADD and ADHD, kids.
Soon, we’ll being living in a two tier society: the “expendibles” and the controlling elites. But who gets to choose? Do we have any choice in whether to participate in pharma’s social darwinism? Should Bill “Microsoft” Gates and his heirs choose for us?
http://theintelhub.com/2010/09/06/vaccinate-the-world-gates-rockefeller-seek-global-population-reduction/
Posted by: patrons99 | November 29, 2010 at 07:48 AM
Yes, yes, yes, great questions. Thank you, Anne.
Posted by: Dan E. Burns | November 29, 2010 at 06:33 AM