I honestly believe that we’ve hit a turning point in the autism conversation.  For the past few years I’ve pretty much been nothing but disappointed by the selection of autism documentaries.  However, this April, I’ve been fortunate enough to screen two films that have the ability to move the autism conversation into a completely different direction--acceptance and progress.  I can’t even begin to tell you how happy this makes me. 

I’ll start with Loving Lampposts: Living Autistic, a film by Todd Drezner.  Like many parents of newly diagnosed children, Drezner felt the need to be proactive after hearing that his son was diagnosed autistic. He set out across the country to meet as many people in the autism community as possible with a camera and an open mind.  The result:  a considerate, respectful and informative look into many of the mysteries and misconceptions surrounding autism.

Drezner introduces us to several parents of autistic kids.  Some of them were desperately searching for a cure and a reason why their child became “sick”. Others found comfort in celebrating their child’s strengths and supporting them in their weaknesses. Drezner’s narration is honest yet subtle.  He presents opposing sides of the autism debate without being disrespectful or leading. 

Throughout the film there are many familiar faces from Paul Offit to Simon Baron Cohen.  Some of the most respected researchers, scientists, doctors, parents and self advocates that support neurodiversity offer some excellent insight into the many misconceptions about autism.  People like Sharisa Kochmeister (non-verbal but genius) Dora Raymaker (co-director of AASPIRE who speaks via computer) and Stephen Shore (a once non-verbal child who now teaches music to autistic children) to name a few.    

Loving Lampposts is an excellent introduction into the autism community.  I’m hoping that when a parent receives the news that their child is autistic, this is a resource they come across when they start to search the web.  It might put their mind at ease and present hope in the form of reality.

Next I’d like to tell you about Larry and Tracy.  They are the stars of Wretches & Jabberers, the anxiously awaited autism documentary directed by Gerardine Wurzburg.  Imagine being strapped to a bed in an institution your entire adolescence or not knowing if you had a bed to sleep in at night.  Then imagine you could not speak the words to express the fear, loneliness and frustration—in other words, everyone presumes you are an empty shell.  Larry and Tracy experienced this and more.  It wasn’t until they were adults that they realized they could communicate through typing.

“…dispel the darkness around us poor wretches.  Take us for real people.  Don’t sideline us.”

--Antti, 21-year-old autistic man

This is just one of the many profound quotes from the autistic adults that Larry and Tracy met on their visits to Finland, Sri Lanka and Japan.  The film is inspirational, funny, chaotic at times, and other times is downright moving. 

The soundtrack was released on iTunes before the films opening to rave reviews.  There are 20 original songs by artists like Norah Jones, Stephen Stills, Judy Collins and Ben Harper.

Please be sure to catch it in the theaters but if you don’t, I’m sure Wretches & Jabberers will be around for a long time.  It will serve as an eye-opening education for those who presume incompetence when introduced to an autistic adult.  It encourages the neurotypical people of the world to get to know an autistic person.  And that is a good thing.

Autreat is a retreat-style conference run by Autism Network

International (http://www.ani.ac), for autistic people and our

families, friends, supporters, and interested professionals. We are

accepting presentation proposals for Autreat 2011, to be

held Monday-Friday, August 8-12, 2011, in Johnstown,  Pennsylvania

(approximately 75 miles from the nearest major  airport at Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania).

PROPOSAL DEADLINE: May 1, 2011

FOR HELP PREPARING A PROPOSAL:

If you want to submit a proposal but you have trouble reading  these

instructions and putting your proposal in the requested format,

contact

proposals2011 (at) autreat.com for help. Please send only plain text

messages, with no attachments.

WHAT KINDS OF WORKSHOPS ARE WANTED AT AUTREAT?

Autreat is very different from typical autism conferences:

WHEN PREPARING A PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION, BE AWARE THAT THE

*PRIMARY* AUDIENCE AT AUTREAT IS AUTISTIC PEOPLE.

Parents and professionals do attend, and most who attend find  the

presentations to be of interest, but Autreat is basically  autistic

space.

Be sure your information is being presented in a manner that is  both

helpful to and respectful of autistic people.

We expect that you will be speaking *to* us, not speaking to

non-autistic people *about* us.

We are interested in presentations, by either autistic or non-autistic

people, about POSITIVE WAYS OF LIVING WITH AUTISM, about functioning

as autistic people in a neurotypical world, and about the disability

movement and its significance for autistic people.

We are interested in educational and informative presentations, not in

sales pitches for a presenter´s products or services. If you are

representing a commercial enterprise and would like a forum to sell

products or services at Autreat, please contact exhibitors (at)

autreat.com for information about attending Autreat as a vendor.

We are *not* interested in presentations about how to cure,  prevent,

or overcome autism.

We do *not* appreciate having non-autistic people come into our space

to talk to each other about how difficult we are to deal with, or how

heroic they are for putting up with us.

If your presentation is geared toward the interests of parents or

professionals, it should focus on positive ways of appreciating and

supporting autistic people, not on reinforcing

negative attitudes about autism and autistic people.

AUTREAT AIMS TO BE WELCOMING AND RELEVANT TO THE BROADEST POSSIBLE

CROSS-SECTION OF THE AUTISTIC POPULATION.

Autreat is attended by autistic people who speak and by autistic

people who do not speak;

by autistic people who communicate fluently and by autistic people who

have limited communication;

by autistic people who live independently and by autistic people who

need intensive support with daily living;

by autistic people who have jobs and by autistic people who live on

disability benefits;

by autistic people who are able to present as "socially acceptable"

and by autistic people who require support to help them manage their

behavior;

by autistic people who have been labeled "high-functioning" and by

autistic people who have been labeled "low-functioning"--including

some autistic people who have had *both* labels, at different times or

under different circumstances.

While it is not expected that any one presentation will be of interest

to each and every autistic person, we do look for presentations that

will appeal to the widest possible audience.

We are *not* interested in presentations that reinforce what we

consider to be artificial distinctions between members of our

community who are labeled "low-" vs."high-functioning."

A NOTE ABOUT "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" PRESENTATIONS:

Be aware that everyone at Autreat either knows what it's like to be

autistic, or knows what it's like to care about someone who is

autistic.

All of us have our own personal stories. Presentations about the

presenters' personal stories are not going to generate much interest,

unless you're able to use your story in a way that will help other

people to share and understand their own experiences in a new way.

Your proposal should describe what participants can expect to get out

of your presentation, not just what personal experiences you're going

to talk about.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT PRESENTATION TOPICS OF INTEREST

Please review the ANI web site (http://www.ani.ac) and the past

Autreat brochures (http://www.autreat.com/past-workshops.htm) to make

sure you understand ANI´s philosophy and what Autreat is about.

If you have never attended Autreat before, you may wish to consider

attending first, before submitting a proposal to give a presentation.

In our experience, presentations usually get more positive feedback

when presenters have some familiarity with Autreat and its

participants before they give presentations there. Active

participation in ANI´s online community, and attendance at other

self-advocacy events run by and for autistic

people, are other good ways to get a feel for how Autreat is different

from typical autism conferences. If you wish to submit a proposal and

you´ve never been to Autreat before, please give us as much

information as possible about your past experience

with other autistic-run activities and events.

WHAT IS EXPECTED OF PRESENTERS?

If you submit a proposal, we expect you to be available to attend

Autreat if we accept your proposal, and to give your presentation on

the day and time scheduled. We make every effort to accommodate

presenters' preferences in setting the Autreat schedule, but it is not

always possible to give every presenter his or her preferred time

slot.

Presenters are expected to send advance copies of any handouts or

slides they plan to use, so that we can prepare alternate format

copies for print-impaired attendees.

Presenters are expected to consent for their presentations to be

recorded, and for the recordings to be sold by Autism Network

International.

Presenters are invited to attend all of Autreat. If presenters opt not

to attend the entire event, they are expected to arrive on-site by

8:30 a.m. for afternoon presentations, and to arrive the night before

for morning presentations.

Please be prepared to meet these expectations if you decide to submit

a proposal.

Presenters are also encouraged to submit an article on their topic for

inclusion in the program book. Like handouts and visual aids, articles

need to be submitted in a timely manner so we can prepare copies in

alternate formats.

WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE PRESENTERS?

Individual Autreat presenters receive free registration for Autreat,

including on-site meals and lodging in a shared (2-person) room. (A

private room may be available at the

presenter´s own expense.) This free registration is for the presenter

*only*, not for a presenter´s family members or support staff.

In the case of panel presentations consisting of three or more

presenters, we offer one complete four-day Autreat registration, plus

a single-day registration (including three meals and one overnight, if

desired) for each additional panelist. Therefore, a panel of X

presenters is entitled to a total of 4+(X-1) free days/overnights.

Panelists may divide these free days amongst their members as they

wish. Panel presenters are of course welcome to register and stay for

additional days if they wish.

ANI is a volunteer-run, member-supported grassroots organization with

minimal funding. We cannot reimburse for off-site expenses, nor can we

pay travel expenses or honoraria. If your proposal is accepted, we

will send you a formal letter of invitation if this

would help you in raising your own travel funds.

Presenters are entitled to receive one free copy of the recording of

their presentations.

PROPOSALS SHOULD INCLUDE:

* Your name and title (if any) exactly as you want them listed in

program materials should your proposal be accepted

* Contact information (address, phone, fax and/or email if you have them)

* Title of your proposed presentation

* Detailed description for consideration by the Planning Committee

* Brief (5 sentences or less) abstract exactly as you want it listed

in program materials should your proposal be accepted

* Indicate ONE theme that BEST relates to your proposed presentation:

[ ] Advocacy skills

[ ] Life skills/adaptive strategies

[ ] Helpful support services

[ ] Communication

[ ] Social/interpersonal issues

[ ] Personal/self-awareness/self-development issues

[ ] Autistic community and culture

[ ] Education

[ ] Employment

[ ] Family issues

[ ] Residential issues

[ ] Disability rights and politics

[ ] Autism research and theory

[ ] Other (describe):

* Indicate which group(s) you believe would find your proposed

presentation of interest. Check as many as apply. Briefly describe

what your presentation would offer to each group:

[ ] Autistic adults

[ ] Autistic teenagers

[ ] Family members of autistic people

[ ] Educators

[ ] Clinicians

[ ] Service providers

[ ] Other (specify):

* Brief (5 sentences or less) presenter bio exactly as you want it

listed in program materials should your proposal be accepted

* Any audiovisual equipment you would need for your presentation

If you have never presented at Autreat before, please also include an

introduction for the Planning Committee summarizing your relevant

experience, including any presentations or other education/advocacy

activities elsewhere, and the nature of your interest in autism and/or

in general disability issues.

PROPOSAL DEADLINE:

May 1, 2011

HOW TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

Proposals can be submitted via email to proposals2011 (at) autreat.com,

or submitted online at http://www.ani.ac/aut11cfp.php ,

or sent via postal mail to

Autism Network International

P.O. Box 35448

Syracuse NY 13235

USA

When your proposal is received via the online form, you will be sent a

brief acknowledgment confirming that we have received your proposal.

If you have not received this confirmation within 48 hours of

submitting your proposal, then we may not have

received your proposal! If you haven´t received confirmation within 48

hours, please contact proposals2011 (at) autreat.com and let us know.

Please save a copy of your proposal, so you can resend it if

necessary.

WHAT IF I DON'T WANT TO PRESENT, BUT I HAVE AN IDEA FOR A PRESENTATION

I'D LIKE TO SEE?

If you want to make suggestions for Autreat presentations, or make

comments about previous presentations or presenters, please fill out

the questionnaire available at http://www.ani.ac/autplan2.php .

WHAT IF I WANT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AUTREAT?

You can find a lot of general information, including a link to join the Autreat

Information mailing list, at http://www.autreat.com . If you have

specific questions and can't find the answers on the web page, you may

send email to info (at) autreat.com.

Please welcome Rachel.  She is an advocate and teacher of sex and relationship education to people with disabilities.

Lupron (chemical castration) “therapy” for autistic children is back in the news. You can read here all about why this doesn't work, doesn't make sense, and puts these children at risk, from a scientific/medical point of view.  I'm not a doctor, so I'll leave them to that piece. But I am an advocate, a teacher of sex and relationship education to people with disabilities, a family member and friend of people with developmental disabilities, including several people with ASD. And from that standpoint, I have something to say about this fresh horror being visited upon autistic children, at the hands of hucksters selling the new snake oil cure to exhausted, frustrated, desperate parents who are looking for anything that even appears to improve their child's life. But these parents need to know, and we need to tell them, this is not the way!

Newsflash: autistic children hit puberty too.

But let's go back even further than that. Human beings, from birth, are sexual beings. Now, before you freak out, let me be clear: children are not and should not be the subject of adult sexuality or participate in adult sexual behavior. That said, anyone who's spent a significant amount of time with small children can probably testify to the fact that children, even babies, will seek out ways to stimulate themselves. Are they doing this because they have some freakish sexual desire or drive? Of course not. It feels good. So what do we do when this happens? Well, sadly, some people freak out and punish their children, but sensible parents redirect and explain the difference between public and private behavior. To my knowledge, when neurotypical children inappropriately express themselves sexually, doctors do not offer chemical castration as a solution. And yet, when an autistic child, hell when a teenager or dependent autistic adult, acts out sexually, you can find a doctor to effectively neuter that child.  

Are we going to start chemically castrating every child that exhibits "inappropriate" sexual expression? This is monstrous, frankly equally monstrous to out and out eugenic measures like physical castration, and is, in part, the natural conclusion of the infantilization and subjugation of people with disabilities. These are behavioral issues and need to be dealt with through behavioral programs; unfortunately too many parents refuse to acknowledge that part of dealing with inappropriate sexual expression is allowing appropriate sexual expression. "Don't touch your penis" is NEVER going to work; "find a private place and an appropriate time to touch your penis" will do wonders. Imagine being an adolescent, with all the hormonal and sexual chaos that comes with that, and additionally having sensory, communication, impulse control and/or social difficulties, maybe you even have obsessive-compulsive disorder. Now imagine that any time that you try to express the sexual impulses that come with that, you're shamed, shouted at, grabbed or otherwise interfered with, without redirection or explanation. You're simply WRONG. You're going to develop some inappropriate behavior, right? This is what many children with developmental disabilities, including autism, face. A world where there is no safe, appropriate outlet for their sexuality because the people who care for them are either unwilling to acknowledge or incapable of addressing in a healthy way their natural, human needs.

We need to stop trying to deny that people with disabilities are people and start teaching them how to meet their needs in appropriate ways. But that involves a lot of work on the parts of parents, educators and caretakers, in terms of respecting privacy and agency, and honestly that's probably where a large part of the barrier is. We, as advocates, need to understand that we cannot treat people with disabilities as though they are neuter, or perpetual children, even if that is the easiest way for us to perceive their situation. One thing that has worked in bringing over parents to understanding this is pointing out that teaching their children about appropriate sexual expression actually helps protect them from sexual abuse.  Sadly, 80% of females and 60% of males with disabilities report being victims of sexual abuse. If a person understands what is appropriate and what is not, if a person does not think all sexual experience is instantly bad and/or shameful, they are much more likely to know when and what to report and why.

You can't erase sexuality, but you can frame it in a safe, appropriate and healthy way. You can offer privacy to children in a place where you know that they are safe. You can offer direction as to when and where it is appropriate to touch oneself. You can modify the same sexual education information that you would offer to a neurotypical child to convey it in more applicable ways. Because, when we get right down to it, these children are not deviants or animals or freaks. They're children, struggling with the same issues of sexual expression as any other child, but further locked in not only by their disability (i.e. impulse control issues, sensory issues, communication issues, social issues, comorbid OCD, etc), but by the unrealistic expectations they often face. Unfortunately, some folks, like Dr Geier, would rather profit on selling parents snake oil, and letting them believe that inappropriate sexual expression and aggression are simply inherent to having autism, and the only solution is to “cure” the autism, through pseudo-scientific treatments that, at best, only serve to zombify the child by shutting down their hormone production.

Now, I know that saying, “redirect and offer appropriate outlets”, isn't magic. It's hard, frustrating, sometimes heartbreaking work. It can require so much repetition, all while having to fight your own natural reactions like embarrassment or exhaustion. And simply allowing appropriate outlets isn't going to remove the need for redirection and intervention overnight. Teaching takes time, and teaching to a child whose brain functions in very different ways than your own takes even more time, it seems. I would never ever suggest that parenting is easy, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that there are any easy answers to parenting an autistic child. The demands of time and effort and dedication are enormous and there is so much that I cannot know, because I do not live it. But there are things we do know and must accept. First and foremost, those dangerous, unproven treatments that deny the humanity, and sexuality, of autistic people are simply unacceptable. That it is no more acceptable to chemically neuter your autistic child than it is to chemically neuter a neurotypical child. The appropriate, healthy, loving, ethical path of respectful and realistic behavioral programming may not be the easy one. But it is the right one. And, believing that parents of autistic children act out of love and what they see as the best interest of their children, I believe that we must appeal to these parents' love, and their dedication to understanding, and show them that these paths are not only unproven, unproven and dangerous, but also simply not what is best for the dignity and well-being of their children as human beings.


The fact that these things are generally done with the best intentions of the parents are why we need to go hard at the quacks out there who are selling parents snake oil to "cure" their children and acting out unethical treatment and straight up abuse in the process. Parents want help, seek it out even when the economic and emotional tolls seem unbearable, and in some cases are so seduced by the false promise of a “cure” to make their child “normal” that they can be brought in to treatments and philosophies that are dangerous pseudoscience; pseudoscience fed by the greed of those who profit from the “cures” and “treatments” they offer. These people need to lose their licenses and their credibility until autism research and treatment is reclaimed to the ends of respect and dignity, empiricism and sound, rational courses of action, instead of popular hysteria fomented by charlatans like Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Geier and Jenny McCarthy. Parents are desperate for understanding and help, the medical and mental health establishments should be trying harder to make sure they're getting sound advice and not being conned into participating in and/or endorsing the torture of their children, even, perhaps especially, when the torture does seem to “work.” You don't need to have all the answers to know that THIS is NOT the answer.

 “Many of us believe that wrongs aren't wrong if they are done by nice people like ourselves.”             ~Author Unknown

There are many scientists, doctors, parents and journalists that have been accused by the anti-vaccine movement of being shills for the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Paul Offit, Steven Novella, Trine Tsouderos, and Orac (pseudonym) have long been targets of Jenny McCarthy and groups like Generation Rescue and Age of Autism for profiting from their support of vaccines.  Even I have even been accused by some members of the anti-vaccine movement of being paid off by the pharmaceutical industry for writing a favorable review of Dr. Offit’s book Autism’s False Prophets.  I’m still waiting for my check.

I have learned, from experience, to be wary of “he who doth protest too much”.   So, after watching Frontline: The Vaccine Wars on PBS, I began to look into the people that are casting the stones.

My research leads me to believe that sites like Age of Autism and Generation Rescue may, in fact, be elaborate fronts for the alternative pharmaceutical industry.  When I went to the websites of Age of Autism and Generation Rescue I noticed that the Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy was a sponsor at both websites.   Wait a minute.  Could these seemingly well-meaning organizations be backed by a pharmaceutical company?  It was time to dig a bit deeper.

J.B. Handley is the founder of Generation Rescue, an organization that attempts to “recover” children from autism through biomedical treatments.  Some of these methods utilize treatments for mercury poisoning in an attempt to cure autism.  Crazy, right?  There is very little support in the scientific community for using these dangerous techniques to treat autism.  There is no scientific evidence that these costly medications and treatments are successful, however, the biomed community continues to prescribe these expensive alternative approaches.  Many desperate parents go broke from chasing these false hopes.  And guess who sells this kind of stuff?  That’s right.  Lee Silsby. 

Jenny McCarthy is now the public face of Generation Rescue.  McCarthy claims to have recovered her son from autism and has vowed to spread the word and share her techniques. Even though she dominates the media’s autism conversation with her own brand of pseudo-science; McCarthy claims there is a media conspiracy against the anti-vaccine movement designed to protect the pharmaceutical industry.  Funnily enough, McCarthy is pushing her own pharmaceutical industry when she touts HBoT (Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy) chambers as a treatment for autism. And guess who sells the HBoT Prep Forumla?  Bingo!  Lee Silsby.

The Age of Autism, the “Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic” is responsible for some of the most outrageous and despicable charges against the pro-vaccine community. Not too long ago, Age of Autism featured a photo-shopped image of some high-profile doctors and journalists feasting on dead babies.  Kim Stagliano, Dan Olmstead and Katie Wright (daughter of Bob and Suzanne Wright, founders of Autism Speaks) are just a few of the contributors that rail daily against science and common sense to demean people who are actually saving lives.  They praise biomed treatments and DAN! (Defeat Autism Now!) Doctors in practically every sentence of their posts.  Do I even need to ask who sponsors their website?  Just to be clear, it is LEE SILSBY!

I contacted Lee Silsby’s marketing person to see how much financial support they give to these organizations.  What started as a pleasant conversation soon changed as the person on the other end became very guarded and evasive.  I was told that sort of information is not available to the public.  Meanwhile, after several attempts to contact Age of Autism contributors, I’ve decided to give up. Generation Rescue did return my call and they claimed that a very small percentage of Generation Rescue’s website is sponsored by Lee Silsby but they declined to give an amount. 

The hypocrisy exhibited by McCarthy, et al. is embarrassing.  They demonize Dr. Offit for benefitting from being the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine yet they rely on the sponsorship of a pharmaceutical company to continue pushing their agenda. They accuse others of being shills of “Big Pharma” when they are shills.  The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. 

Age of Autism has crossed a line. 

Earlier this week authorities found the body of a missing autistic boy after he had wandered away from his grandparents’ home.  This is a horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the family. 

In addition to reporting this sad news, Age of Autism decided to exploit the matter for what they hoped would be their own advantage on twitter.

 I find it incredibly obscene that they are blaming Ari Ne’eman for not wanting to “cure” autism.  It seems that Kim Stagliano, Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill have completely given up on the idea that we can improve the quality of life of autistic people.  Instead, they choose to attack an autistic self-advocate.

When reporting on the death of the young boy, Age of Autism posted the following lead in to the story on their website:

“This senseless tragedy has been brought to you by autism.”

This manipulative statement makes it seem that if there was no autism, things like this wouldn’t happen.  It is not like this is the first time they have pulled this type of twisted stunt. When discussing an autistic student who was dragged by his heels down the hall by his aide, Kim Stagliano stated:

“This story is why we parents, derisively called ‘Curebies’ because we seek treatment for autism, will never stop seeking recovery for our kids. As the numbers explode, expect more horror stories of abuse and neglect.”

Amazingly, Stagliano blames autism instead of the abuser.  In Stagliano’s mind, autism is so horrible that it invites abuse and neglect.  This despicable pattern of behavior by Age of Autism needs to be exposed for its exploitative nature.  The enemy isn’t autism.  The real enemy is the ignorance and intolerance on display at AgeOfAutism.com.  

The autism community is extremely critical when Hollywood attempts autism.  So when Hollywood does a good job, we should show our support.  Go see Dear John before it’s out of the theaters.  It’s one of the best autism portrayals that I’ve ever seen.  Yes, Claire Danes did an excellent job as Temple Grandin (she really did) but the young Braeden Reed played the role of Alan in the movie so authentically that my husband turned to me and said : “He’s got to really be autistic”.  Sure enough, Braeden Reed is autistic and he knocked it out of the park.

The film follows a young couple--the equally charming Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried--through a long-distance relationship delivering a love story that will be remembered and pondered for years to come.  Well, at least by me.   But those are not the autistic people.  The autistic characters are co-stars that help give dimension, heart and compassion to the young leads.  My husband (a veteran of the Marine Corps) write reviews of military films so we waited for the credits to reveal the military advisor and autism consultant.  I immediately went home to look up Phil Blevins, Executive Director of CarolinaAutism.org and we struck up an email conversation.  And this is what he had to say:

When the casting agent contacted me he said that he had been told it would be easier to hire a child who did not have autism and have me coach him to act like he did have autism. I immediately told him that I would rather introduce him to someone with autism. I referenced movies like "Mercury Rising" and "House of Cards" as examples of movies in which a child tried to mimic autism. I let him know that many people found those performances lacking in authenticity - bordering on offensive. I don't think that a child trying to imitate autism would be able to show us that autism and at the same time show joy. Braeden was joyful and it showed on the screen as I hoped it would.

And his joy rubbed off on the filmmakers. My favorite example: The livestock coordinator, Dan Hydrick, was assigned to "assess" whether Braeden could do the horse scene. They had already hired a double for the actual riding parts, they just wondered if Braeden could sit on the horse long enough for a closeup. Dan met us at a riding stable and right away told me, "Look, no offense but I work for the movie. I don't give riding lessons and frankly I don't think Braeden should go near a horse. But they asked me to see if he can at least sit still on one." Braeden had never been near a horse. In the movie there was supposed to be a scene in which Alan rode with his hands in the air. They planned to shoot it from behind so you couldn't tell it wasn't Braeden. Right there at the stable we all watched as Braeden lived the scene, holding Honey's muzzle and staring into her eyes, tuning all the adults around him out. I still cry (even as I type this) when I remember Braeden riding with his hands in the air at the stables and Dan taking digital photos to bring back to to Lasse to ask for Braeden to do all the shots himself, no stunt double. Later Dan told me "That boy changed my life.”

There was another character in the film, Mr. Tyree, played by the incredibly talented Richard Jenkins.  Mr. Tyree is an undiagnosed autistic left to raise a son on his own.  Jenkins is superb in balancing his love for his son and his own social anxieties.  I don’t know how much longer Dear John will be in theaters but do yourself a favor and go see it.  That young autistic actor gave me hope that people are beginning to understand and respect autism.

thank my friend for sharing his family’s story.  It’s long, it’s heartbreaking, and it’s important.   Please take the time to read it.  I wish you and your family all the best, my friend, and I hope that one day you will be able to end this battle.  ---- D.C. 

The 10 Year Battle, and counting…

This is the story of our experience of trying to obtain services for our child with Autism and other co-morbid conditions. Please take the time to read it.  It is all true, unfortunately. We have used the name “Lucas” to circumvent legal issues and no names or names of places have been used. The story is by no means complete but you can clearly get the essence of our battle.

1999

Lucas entered the elementary school district in 1999. Prior to his entry we had had him assessed by our local school district (at the time), which had performed an excellent assessment of his needs.

The district took that assessment and filed it away somewhere and apparently never read or understood what Lucas’s needs were.

Lucas lasted about 3 days at the elementary school (in addition to frightening the life out of the brand new, inexperienced, untrained, no special education credentialed, first teaching assignment, teacher) before he was admitted to the hospital so that we would try to figure out what was going on with his behavior. The hospital was an excellent learning experience and they performed numerous tests and assessments, pinpointing, again, all of Lucas’s needs and what needed to be provided by the elementary school.

It is important to note that during his short three-day stay at the elementary school, the school psychologist would routinely pull Lucas’s older fourth grade sister out of class to calm him. This was because no one in the entire elementary school or district knew what to do with him, yet his sister, a fourth grader, knew exactly what to do. Amazing.

After Lucas’s hospital stay, we met again with the district and even had the social worker come from the hospital to reinforce what Lucas needed. The district again, took all of this information and filed it away somewhere. The district decided to home school Lucas until an appropriate school placement could be found. Again, they sent an unqualified and untrained elementary school teacher to work with Lucas. This lasted only one visit, whereupon the district deemed that Lucas could not be home schooled.

Shortly thereafter (about a month or two) the district placed Lucas into a Non-Public School (NPS) “preschool” class and not a “Kindergarten” class, which is where he was supposed to be. In addition to not putting him in a Kindergarten class, they did not put in any of the services or supports that were described by all of the hospital assessments and the hospital social worker at our meeting. Needless to say, Lucas did not do well there and finally just short of being asked to leave Lucas was moved to another NPS after about 9 months.

2000

Upon reviewing the second NPS, it appeared that they had a handle on the behavioral approach and clearly had enough staff, and we were told from the start that Lucas would not be able to “learn” until they got the “behavior” under control. Since this program was primarily for children that were “emotionally disturbed” (or ED) and not autistic, it too was doomed from the start.

An interesting point about programs that are not experienced with other disorders that they do not serve. For some reason they believe that they are experts in all areas (or at least enough to rule out other diagnoses), but they only see the diagnosis that they serve in the children that attend their program (regardless of what is really there). And, although they state that they want parent involvement, they really want the parents not to interfere in “their” process.

About the time that Lucas began at the second NPS he was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. Prior to this Lucas had the diagnoses of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, ADHD, Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Expressive/Receptive Language Disorder, and some other learning disorders.  He did not yet have the diagnoses of Autism.

We continued to plod along trying to work with the district and NPS with which we thought that we had a fairly good relationship with because they were there to help us right? Wrong!

Of course we knew nothing about diabetes and with the whirlwind of behavioral challenges and learning the ropes of Special Education we were very uneducated and unaware to say the least. This was all about to change through the benefit of the incompetence of the public school system.

While attempting to get the necessary medical services for Lucas to participate in school we were met with great resistance from both the district and the NPS. Due to this resistance, we did some research and determined that Lucas was eligible to receive protection under Section 504 as well as IDEA. We were repeatedly told by both the district and NPS that everything that Lucas needed was covered by IDEA. Lucas’s IEP however, had absolutely no health care language anywhere, so we wrote our own Section 504, which the district stated that Lucas’s doctor would have to approve the plan, and he did. (The district thereafter contacted Lucas’s doctor without our consent or participation and convinced the doctor that Lucas was already receiving everything that he needed through his IEP. The doctor then changed his position based on the conversation with the district and without consulting with us. We had to start the fight all over again.)

2001

While attempting to get these supports put into place and on the day after one IEP where we had many discussions with the district and NPS regarding healthcare, Lucas’s transportation aide arrived in the morning with an ultimatum. The aide handed Lucas’s Mother a document to waive all liability from her in the event that something should happen to Lucas. As a condition of her continuing to perform the function as Lucas’s transportation aide we would have to sign the document and relieve her of any liability. When we refused to sign the document the aide quit on the spot and the matter of providing Lucas’s transportation to the NPS was relinquished to us (the parents, immediately) for an indefinite period of time, as there were no backup aides. This is only one of many unethical practices that the district and NPS staff did continually.

As an aside, Lucas had also been a consumer of the Regional Center (an agency in some states that provides services to children and adults that suffer from developmental disabilities). I will not go into the experiences with that agency but needless to say they were very similar to our experiences with the district and NPS with both of them continuously pointing the finger at the other and doing nothing for Lucas.

Lucas’s Mother at this point had to take a leave of absence from work until such time that the district could locate, hire and train another aide to transport Lucas to the NPS. During this time Lucas’s Mother began to research and educate herself (and me) on the Special Education process. One of the advocacy organizations that we came across was Wright’s Law (www.wrightslaw.com). We flew her to Columbus, SC for their boot camp and she learned all sorts of things that the district and NPS had not shared with us, intentionally. One of the most important things was assessments. The district is required by law to assess and evaluate your child under ALL areas of SUSPECTED disability, not just the ones that THEY think that he might or might not have.

The district and NPS had maintained all along that Lucas could not be assessed because he would not cooperate. However he had cooperated for all of the assessments that we had had done independently of the district and NPS. We would later find that one of the reasons that the district and NPS could not perform an assessment of Lucas was due to their belief that he was not performing to his full capability (or to the level of capability that they believed that he had). Each time that we would attend an open house at the NPS we would never see any papers on the wall of Lucas’s work. When we asked why we were told that Lucas would not cooperate. After 2 years of the NPS attempting to remediate Lucas’s behavior and failing, and not being able to assess Lucas in any area of disability, the light bulb came on.

We stop signing that we agree with the IEPs, which gets their attention, at first.

2002

We move forward with our own assessments since the district and NPS refused to do so. Luckily, we found two really good doctors who split up the task to assess the psychological and the neuropsychological. After reviewing all of the documents on Lucas the psychologist came to the conclusion that Lucas may in fact have Autism, which would explain the laundry list of previous behavioral diagnoses. Over the next six to nine months the assessments would indeed state that Lucas was on the Autism spectrum and had numerous learning deficits that had never been discovered by the district or the NPS, let alone addressed by them. The Autism diagnosis was also confirmed by the neuropsychologist and later, in 2003, by another independent psychologist consulting for the Regional Center.

The NPS environment continues to erode.

2003

We presented the results of our independent assessments to the district and the NPS. The response was, “No new findings.”

By this time, some four years after being in the district and three years in the NPS, Lucas’s behavior and learning deficits that have gone unaddressed have only worsened. Lucas is spending as much or more time in the “quiet” room (a seclusion room) as he is in the classroom. He is being restrained, frequently. One day I arrived to pick him up and he was in the “quiet” room with a piece of carpet (that he had ripped from the floor) wrapped around his hand punching the walls. The NPS staff did not know how to calm him, which I did within a few seconds after entering the room.

The school psychologist attempts to medicate Lucas with everything under the sun, desperately trying to “fix” his behavior. Some of the medications make his behavior severely worse. Some of the medications make him stand on his head or do cart wheels. None of them work. The district and NPS are increasingly pointing at us (the parents) as the problem with his continued lack of progress yet they call us constantly to ask advice when they cannot handle his behavior. Lucas has a daily routine of eloping out of the classroom and climbing a tree in the playground whereupon no less than six staff surrounds the tree waiting for him to come down. You would think that after the first couple of times they would figure out how to circumvent this behavior (since they are the behavior experts) but it never happens. They eventually cut down one of the trees that he climbs on a regular basis (how’s that for behavior modification?). The entire situation is completely out of control.

All of the reports from the NPS indicate that Lucas is making progress across the board, falsely. They report, falsely, at every IEP that he is making progress in all areas, including behavior.

We file a complaint (hundreds of pages, the complaint and supporting documentation) with the state board of education that ultimately finds that the district and the NPS are doing everything that they are supposed to and Lucas is making progress. (We should have known better when the person that we spoke with at the state board of education did not know what a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) was.) The FBA was another assessment that the district and NPS did not perform at our request and should have been the first thing that they did or at some point thereafter when Lucas’s behavior did not improve.

2004

The final report is released by the state board of education indicating that Lucas is making progress and that the district and the NPS are doing everything that they are supposed to.

One incident (on the heels of the state board of education findings) brings everything to a head whereupon Lucas escaped the NPS campus and four (or more) NPS staff jumped into a van and chased him down to bring him back to school. The police were called. The police attempted to speak to Lucas and convince him that if he did not “behave” they would be called back to arrest him. This of course did not mean anything to Lucas since he has a memory deficit in addition to other learning deficits that had never been addressed.

We spoke with one of the psychologists that diagnosed Lucas with Autism about the incident. The psychiatrist told us, “You have to get him into the system so that he can get the help that he needs because he is not getting what he needs at the NPS.”

We then wrote a letter to the NPS basically stating that we were very concerned that they could not handle him, after 4 years, and that should this happen again they were to call 911 and have him transported to the hospital for observation. Of course the NPS did not like this so they wrote us a letter in response stating that they would be returning Lucas to the district because of “safety and a failure to make progress.” So now after they had lied to the state board of education stating that Lucas was making progress they are now going to dump him back in our lap (because he had nowhere else to go, and that’s another long story where we were trying to get him into a different school and they told us he was getting everything that he needed right where he was and refused to move him).

After some wrangling and exercising our “stay-put” rights we eventually had to retain the services of an attorney. The beautiful thing about this attorney is that he loved to stand up and yell at districts. We really enjoyed the fact that someone was finally on our side and we didn’t have to appear too aggressive or too lax or too whatever the district and the NPS were going to use against us.

One of the things that the attorney told us early on was that the district attorney had contacted him and said, “What do you want?” He said that he had never had a district do that (even though it turned out to be just lip service).

2005

After much assessing and finding of experts and service providers we hold a massive IEP with attorneys and everyone else involved. The IEP goes wonderfully and everybody knows what is required of them and what they are supposed to do and further, what “Lucas’s” needs are.

A month later we receive a document stating some general services that are non-specific to Lucas. It was as if the district and NPS were at a completely different meeting than we were. Negotiations that go nowhere continue into the summer. Eventually, the NPS kicks Lucas out of school by not renewing the contract for him with the district. They did renew all of the other students’ contracts.

Lucas was now at home without any services or school. The most that he has is daycare that is makeshift with its own problems, which causes him to regress further. My wife searches for a program for him and finds one at the local hospital, a day treatment program that looks like it might work as most of the staff are already familiar with Lucas from his previous stays there.

We take Lucas to the program and check him in. We then leave to go to a meeting with the Regional Center and legal people again, attempting to get services for him to try and keep him home. Twenty minutes into our ride there we get a phone call from the head of the hospital department. Apparently, Lucas wanted to listen to his CD player. When staff told him that he could not he got upset and knocked a window (an unbreakable one) out of its frame and cracked it, with his head. They were calling us to get permission to immediately admit him into the psychiatric ward at the hospital. They had him in full restraints and gave him Thorazine to knock him out. The doctor said that he could not believe the level of intensity of the behavior that we had been dealing with.  This was because we understood Lucas and were fairly effective in managing him as best as we could without an appropriate school placement (for years) or any support services. If you have ever read the book, The Explosive Child by Dr. Ross Green, you will understand exactly what I am speaking about.

The hospital stay lasted about a month and again was a place that did not understand the problems that Lucas had, nor did they want to. Eventually we had to remove him, against doctor’s advice (like they knew what they were doing and there are many bad examples of how they handled things), because we feared for his life. Their whole approach to treatment was to knock him out with Thorazine every time that he had a behavioral outburst. This caused problems with his diabetes care as Thorazine causes high blood sugar, which they again had no expertise with and did not manage effectively.

The day that I removed him from the hospital they had given him insulin and no food due to a restraining incident. For this reason we ended up in the emergency room because he started to pass out due to hypoglycemia immediately after his discharge. When I attempted to take him back to the unit to get some help they refused. That pretty much sums up the treatment that he received there.

My wife had to take another leave of absence from work so that she could care for him while we (she) attempted to find a suitable residential placement for him. During his stay in the hospital there was of course another meeting with lots of attorneys and agencies. The head of the hospital department, trying to get some movement, stated that he was scared to go into a room with Lucas due to his behavior. He stressed that the agencies really need to provide services, which Lucas had not received thus far and that Lucas’s stay at the hospital would be short term. This of course backfired and the Regional Center withdrew all services because Lucas was deemed too dangerous to serve. They however did not have a problem leaving him at home with my wife, alone, indefinitely.

My wife single handedly performed a nation wide search for a suitable residential placement. Due to the complexity of Lucas’s profile there were only a handful of prospective placements (three to be exact). We were flat-out turned down by some due to Lucas having diabetes (and this still happens today). We flew all over the US on our own dime reviewing the prospects. Lucas was accepted and was just about to be admitted to one placement when they found out that we had high expectations for his recovery (that he would learn to read and eventually be able to live independently) and they said no way. What they actually did was send us an email in the afternoon after a meeting that we had with them stating that he was no longer accepted. The meeting was on a Friday and he was to start the following Monday.

So now we’re in scramble mode. My wife’s leave of absence is ending and she has to go back to work.

Now some might say why didn’t she just stay home with him and give him the care that he needed? In response I would ask if your child developed cancer or some other disease that required highly trained specialists would you try to care for him yourself or would you seek to obtain the best help that you could find?

The placement that he did end up in was our last choice and the concerns that we had were justified but we had no other choice but to send him there.

The following week Lucas was admitted into residential placement. Eventually over time, all of our concerns came to pass, unfortunately, and Lucas had to be removed due to abuse.

2006

The last time that we went to visit Lucas at the residential placement the school called us on our way there from the airport. Lucas had been restrained the prior weekend and their incident report had mentioned “minor” scrapes and scratches. They called to let us know that Lucas’s injuries were more severe than they had first thought and that “when they took the bandages off,” they noticed that Lucas had severe injuries from the restraining incident. You can imagine our state of mind on the hour-long trip to the school. When we arrived at the school we could not believe what we saw. The scary part was that the staff seemed unphased by it and talked around it like it was no big deal. The emergency room doctor and Child and Family Services thought otherwise. Oh, and the school had not sought the advice of an independent doctor, they only used their own.

We spent the next two days in the emergency room and with the Department of Child and Family Services. We were advised NOT to take him back there by both the emergency room doctor and the Department of Child and Family Services. So, after spending two days of our visit in the emergency room and a day with Child and Family services we made plans to bring him home.

The district did not agree with this and instructed us to return him to the residential placement until they had time to do an investigation, which would take some time. Their letters and emails told us not to “unilaterally” remove him and that they did not concur with our position. Being concerned parents we ignored their direction. For months Lucas had acted apprehensive about returning to the school during our visits. We now knew why.

This time I took a leave of absence from work to care for Lucas. As it happened, the same weekend that we removed Lucas from this placement, another placement that we had previously applied to some 9 months earlier became available and we notified the district. We thought that Lucas would be transitioned immediately to the new placement (after review and acceptance by us) but we were wrong. The district dragged it out for 3 months for no reason whatsoever other than to punish us for caring about Lucas and being concerned parents. One of their reasons was to complete their “investigation,” but this never occurred. The district maintains to this day that the placement was appropriate and that we prematurely removed Lucas for no good reason. When you look at the pictures, do you agree with them?

After three months Lucas was finally admitted to the new residential placement. It was not perfect by any means but was a much better school with much better people than the first. The district made promises that Lucas would get what he needed. More broken promises.

Although this placement was better it still had many shortcomings that could have been corrected but no one was interested in doing that and they kept telling us that Lucas was getting everything that he needed, even though things were getting worse.

2007

We were trying to bring him home again so that he could finally get what he needed. For the first 2 years everyone kept telling us that they would review his progress and plan his return based on that. The only problem with this approach was that it was the blind leading the blind. Lucas had no peer group and no friends at the placement. Although they liked him they had no idea what to do with him or how to serve him. We had provided hundreds of pages of assessments and documentation before his admission but again, it was never read or understood and it held many of the answers that had been determined time and time again by previous assessments.

2008

Eventually, we had a consultant go and review the program. The consultant found additional shortcomings that we did not. Shortly after the consultant had reviewed the program, the school notified us that they wanted Lucas discharged in 45 days. Evidently, they realized that they were not meeting Lucas’s needs and he was regressing rapidly. He was getting bigger, was very athletic (none of the other students where like him) and it was becoming more and more painfully obvious that he did not belong there.

To buy some time, the school agreed to keep Lucas until the local program (which we had been working to put together with the district) was in place. This took a long time as the agencies did what they usually do, nothing (and their still doing nothing).

2009

We had another consultant that was to provide the behavioral component travel to the school to assess Lucas. The consultant found many of the same issues in addition to others.  Things were continuing to deteriorate.

One morning after having a nice weekend we got an email to call the school. It was Monday morning about 10:30 AM and we were both at work. We called the school and spoke with the director and the behavioral staff. They told us that there had been an incident and that they were going to discharge Lucas in 30 minutes by Police escort to the local hospital psychiatric ward. This was a difficult situation as we were 1,500 miles away from the school. I immediately had to drop everything and get a flight out that afternoon to go and get Lucas and bring him home, to again, no services or school program. In the meantime while I was in route, my wife continued to communicate with the school whereupon they notified her that things were not going as they had planned for Lucas’s discharge. For one, the police would not come to escort him to the hospital because they did not do that type of thing. Second, the hospital did not have any room for him. They attempted to place him in a state hospital, but that was 3 hours away by car and Lucas required medical support for the trip. So, the school was at a loss for where they could send him.

All this time Lucas was just fine. He was playing, not upset, and was doing his normal routine. Eventually, my wife discussed with the school that I was on my way to pick him up. Once they learned this they stated that they would hold him until I got there, which was the next day. This was a great relief for the school since they had no other option. My wife also notified the district and all the other agencies that Lucas was coming home and that he needed a program immediately. Again, the agencies did nothing, as usual.

Once home, we got care for Lucas and started to line up services without any assistance from the district or other agencies. We immediately placed Lucas into the reading program that he had needed since 2002 (per our independent assessments) that is, against the advice of the district, and any other services that he could tolerate.

2010

Where we are today:

Lucas has been home for almost a year (going on 10 months) since his abrupt discharge from the last placement and the district has done nothing to put a program together for him. In fact, the district has stated, in writing, that the reason that Lucas is home is be cause we “prematurely” removed him from the school, even though they have a letter from the residential placement stating that Lucas was discharged and why. We have continued to pay for his aide and transportation to the reading program. The district is paying for the reading program, but that is all they are paying for, and the only reason that they are pay for that is because we were going to take him there with or without their assistance. They told us when Lucas came home that we should not take him there.  We pay for everything else that he is getting in the way of education services.

Lucas has attended the reading program and has not missed one day due to behavior. The reading program (Lindamood-Bell) I cannot say enough about. They have the highest quality people and management and know what they are doing. We simply send him there and they know exactly what to do. They are teamed with the aide that we trained specifically to manage Lucas and he too does this very effectively, so we know that it can be done. This is not to say that there are not any difficulties, but they are managed effectively and Lucas is making progress, real progress, for the first time in 10 years. Lucas was never on the board (score board) for reading comprehension, in 10 years of public school. After a few months of Lindamood-Bell he finally had a comprehension score and is moving onward and upward and progressing nicely.

Unfortunately, because Lucas has not had an ABA program to address his behavior, this has regressed in addition to all of the bad behaviors that were developed in inappropriate residential placements and NPSs.

We have been in due process in one form or another ever since Lucas came into the high school district and the elementary school district before that. The high school district is worse to deal with than the elementary school district ever was. Because they are taking their time, again, we may yet again end up in residential placement, which they are pushing. The problem with residential placement, aside from the obvious, is that there are none that can meet Lucas’s needs.

There are thousands of details and side stories that have been omitted as I have tried to keep it brief. Hopefully, you made it this far.  We continue to fight!

The saga continues…

Bruce Springsteen probably isn’t used to being on the receiving end of a protest.  But if he is going to support Autism Speaks, then he better get used to it.  This Tuesday night, November 17th, outside Carnegie Hall (154 West 57th Street near 7th Ave), there will be a group of autistic self advocates shouting “Nothing About us, Without Us”. 

Autism Speaks is holding their “Concert for Autism Speaks” on 11/17 and is supported by celebrities like Jerry Seinfeld and Bruce Springsteen.  According to Autism Speaks website, Jamie Foxx, Ellen DeGeneres, Tina Fey, Conan O’Brien, Seth Rogen, Martha Stewart, Katie Couric, Meredith Vieira, Glen Close, Celine Dion, Will Ferrell, Edie Falco, Troy Aikman and Harry Smith are among the committee members supporting this event.  Sir Elton John, Senator Al Fraken, Donald and Melania Trump are among those serving as the evening’s honorary Co-Chairs.

C’mon folks.  If you live in NYC please show your support by turning up on Tuesday night. 

Thanks to ASAN, here is a list of the reasons why many in the autism community are speaking out against Autism Speaks: 

1. Autism Speaks talks about us without us. Not a single Autistic person is on Autism Speaks' Board of Directors or in their leadership. Autism Speaks is one of an increasingly few number of major disability advocacy organizations that refuse to include any individual with the disability they purport to serve on their board of directors or at any point in their leadership and decision-making processes. In large part due to Autism Speaks’ public relations strategy of presenting Autistic people as silent burdens on society rather than human beings with thoughts, feelings and opinions.

2. They use fear and stigma to try and raise money off the backs of our people. Autism Speaks uses damaging and offensive fundraising tactics which rely on fear, stereotypes and devaluing the lives of people on the autism spectrum. Autism Speaks' advertising claims that Autistic people are stolen from our own bodies. Its television Public Service Announcements compare having a child on the autism spectrum to having a child caught in a fatal car accident or struck by lightning. In fact, the idea of autism as a fate worse than death is a frequent theme in their fundraising and awareness efforts, going back to their “Autism Every Day” film in 2005. Indeed, throughout Autism Speaks’ fundraising is a consistent and unfortunate theme of fear, pity and prejudice, presenting Autistic adults and children not as full human beings but as burdens on society that must be eliminated as soon as possible.

3. Very little money donated to Autism Speaks goes toward helping Autistic people and families: According to their 2008 annual report, only 4% of Autism Speaks’ budget goes towards the “Family Service” grants that are the organization’s means of funding services. Given the huge sums of money Autism Speaks raises from local communities as compared to the miniscule sums it gives back, it is not an exaggeration to say that Autism Speaks is a tremendous drain on the ability of communities to fund autism service-provision and education initiatives Furthermore, while the bulk of Autism Speaks’ budget (65%) goes toward genetic and biomedical research, only a small minority of Autism Speaks’ research budget goes towards research oriented around improving services, supports, treatments and educational methodologies, with most funding going towards basic research oriented around causation and genetic research, including the prospect of prenatal testing. Although Autism Speaks has not prioritized services with a practical impact for families and individuals in its budget, its rates of executive pay are the highest in the autism world, with annual salaries as high as $600,000 a year.

Link to the Joint Letter Against Autism Speaks, signed by over 60 Disability Rights Groups: http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=61

If you want to stop eugenics, find out more about Autism Speaks unethical fundraising practices, or plan a protest at their next walk in your hometown, please email  rethinkingautism@gmail.com for more information.