Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 I've read about this program and it really isn't a cure. It might work to help some children connect more with the world, but it is far from a cure. What annoys me about it though is the emphasis on eye contact. Never understood the fascination with it. We must be the only animal on earth that "likes" eye contact. All others see it as a challenge and dominance thing. A couple of weeks ago I watched an episode of House, a doctor show. I normally hate those kind of shows, but because the guide said one of the patients was an autistic child, I watched it. It went about as expected: the staff really had no patience for the child and weren't particularly nice to him. Dr House was a little more helpful however. There was a scene where Dr. House was talking about how he didn't pity the child but envied him because the child was completely unconcerned about social rules and norms and was in his own world. That annoyed the heck out of me. While that may be true for a child as autistic as the one on the show, that "freedom" was far offset by the difficulties. Later, it seemed that House researched Asperger's Syndrome. To a degree it seemed to fit him, but one of his superiors called him out saying that he wasn't AS, but just a jerk who was looking for something to excuse his bad behavior. Now, maybe House was AS, who's to say? However, this kind on answer is common for people with AS who have been told they are using this "disability" to try to get their own way or explain their behavior. In the end, the boy was cured of his sickness, not the Autism. However, he did walk over to Dr. House and given House his prized video game, a PS3. The Boy also looked House in the eye, the first time he had ever done that. I also found this annoying because of the implications. First was the annoying eye contact thing, but then also the kid giving up his game. Some might have done that, but given how he fought having it taken away before, it wasn't realistic. My main objection I suppose was that because Dr. House cured the boy of one thing, that that meant there was a cure for Autism too. There isn't. The above really annoyed me because there is no cure for autism, so is 'Son Rise' now going around saying it is a cure? Annoying that it will build up false hopes for some and what kind of success rate does it really have? Does it claim to cure all those on the autism spectrum?One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 I couldn't get that link but I would be very disappointed to see it posted as a cure. Son Rise actually has a great deal of merit as they accept stims and use them as a way of connecting with the child. http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/about_son-rise/index.php Son Rise Found this posted on another forum (copied and pasted below); Just saw an advert like this in the Leeds Metro newspaper today advocating a cure? http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/email/2008/flyers_posters/uktour_ nov08_flyer.pdf The above really annoyed me because there is no cure for autism, so is 'Son Rise' now going around saying it is a cure? Annoying that it will build up false hopes for some and what kind of success rate does it really have? Does it claim to cure all those on the autism spectrum? Sorry I'm still behind with posts btw and really ought to get studying for the theory part of my driving test soon; I'm procrastinating a bit, would much prefer to catch up with the forums to be honest, but I also want to be prepared for theory test. ------------------------------------ FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 >> Found this posted on another forum (copied and pasted below);> > Just saw an advert like this in the Leeds Metro newspaper today > advocating a cure?> > http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/email/2008/flyers_posters/uktour_> nov08_flyer.pdf First, good luck on your test ! Second, I actually saw this program being implemented but have forgotten where, most likely the Discovery Channel. From what I could see from the tapes they showed of the interactions between parent and child, it may help some. As to the theory that a child can "decide" to become non-autistic, well that just doesn't have any proof. Kim Here is what I read on Wiki. Son-Rise From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Son-Rise Program is a home-based, child-centered program for children with autism spectrum disorders and other developmental disabilities.[1] The program emphasizes eye contact, accepting the child without judgment, and engaging the child in a noncoercive way, and it hypothesizes that treated children will decide to become non-autistic.[1] Former advertising executive Barry Neil Kaufman and his wife Samahria Lyte Kaufman developed Son-Rise in the late 1960s and early 1970s while working with their son Raun, who was diagnosed with autism as a toddler, and who is claimed to have gone from being autistic to neurotypical via the treatment.[1] No published independent study has tested the efficacy of the program. A 2003 study found that involvement with the program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time,[2] and a 2006 study found that the program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy.[3] More studies began in 2008.[4] History This section needs additional citations for verification.Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008) At four weeks old, Raun Kaufman had an ear infection that was treated with antibiotics, which caused severe dehydration and a several-day hospital stay; doctors feared Raun would suffer permanent hearing loss. Raun eventually started displaying autistic symptoms and was later diagnosed as severely autistic.[1] Although the Kaufmans were advised to institutionalize their child because of his "hopeless, lifelong condition",[5] they began a program of their own, based upon the idea that their child was engaged in these behaviors for a reason that made sense only to him.[citation needed] His parents tried to communicate with Raun not by overt attempts to force neurotypical behavior, but by imitating his endless rocking, plate spinning and other rituals, while gently introducing eye contact, speech and song for him to engage with if he would,[citation needed] until Raun, on his own, made direct eye contact with his mother during the treatment.[citation needed] According to the Kaufmans, during an intensive program, Raun's autistic behaviors vanished and he became a highly verbal, socially interactive child with a near-genius IQ who went on to graduate from an Ivy League school.[5] By his parents' and his own accounts, he now leads a "normal" life.[citation needed] In 1983, the Kaufmans founded what is now known as the Autism Treatment Center of America (ATCA) to offer other parents the opportunity to learn how to create a play-based home program for autism spectrum children.[citation needed] The center is an independent non-profit organization, based in Sheffield, Massachusetts that offers training programs to parents, caretakers and therapists.[6][not in citation given] In 1976, Barry Kaufman published Son-Rise,[7] a book about his son Raun's "triumph over autism", which he revised and added further material to in 1995 in Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues.[1] An NBC TV Movie Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love based on the book was broadcast in 1979. Kaufman left his career in motion picture advertising to treat autism, and to become a writer and consultant. Raun Kaufman's career has included stints with SCORE! Educational Centers, a tutoring program in the United States.[citation needed] He is the CEO of the Autism Treatment Center of America,[8] and is overseeing expansion of its treatment centers to the United Kingdom.[citation needed] The Son-Rise Program has been widely covered in the press;[citation needed] for example, a 1997 BBC documentary followed the family of a five year old autistic boy treated by the program.[9] Treatment and philosophy This section needs additional citations for verification.Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008) At the Autism Treatment Center of America, parents are given training to help them encourage their child to interact and socialize more effectively. The acquisition of developmental skills plays an important role in the program, however the priority in a Son-Rise Program is encouraging socialization and communication abilities. While there are other programs that emphasize a play-based therapy, such as Dr. Stanley Greenspan's DIR/Floortime model, one of the distinguishing features of Son-Rise is its emphasis on loving and accepting the child just as he or she is, with the idea that the autistic child "senses" your attitude through your voice, body language and nonverbal behavior, and will learn to trust you.[citation needed] As Raun Kaufman put it, "… the children show us the way in and we show them the way out."[10] The Son-Rise philosophy also states that if you approach the child with a positive, loving attitude, the child is more likely to interact than if you engage with a sense of underlying anger, despair, hopelessness and desperation. The idea is based upon the belief that any child, even an autistic child, is more likely to thrive by means of interaction and play with others who are having fun with the child and enjoying what the child enjoys.[11] As the child engages with the parent or caregiver, a constant attempt is made to expand the child's interest beyond "self-stimulating" behaviors. The overall technique is said not to reinforce self-stimulating behavior.[citation needed] Many parents struggle to accept their child's diagnosis and the unique behaviors of autism. It is not uncommon for parents to experience guilt or fears for the future. Son-Rise says that, by offering parents support in these areas, parents are able to attain a greater degree of comfort playing with their child and in their day-to-day life with their child. They say this attitude, combined with specific play strategies, gives parents a greater opportunity to encourage more of the type of interactions that they wish to create with their child. Son-Rise is volunteer-intensive with high turnover, and may require parents to fill in staffing gaps.[11] Effectiveness Although Son-Rise had never participated in published formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness,[11] clinical trials and a retrospective long-term study of program participants began in 2008.[4] Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated.[12] There are no documented normalizations with older children, and it may be that success "depends on a certain level of intellectual potential".[13] Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children.[11] The consensus within the medical community is that there is no cure for autism and only a very few treatments have empirical evidence for improvements in symptoms.[12][14] A 2003 study found that involvement with the Son-Rise Program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time, although family stress levels did not rise in all cases.[2] A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy.[3] References ^ a b c d e Kaufman BN (1995). Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues. HJ Kramer. ISBN 0915811618. ^ a b KR, Wishart JG (2003). "The Son-Rise Program intervention for autism: an investigation into family experiences". J Intellect Disabil Res 47 (4–5): 291–9. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00491.x. PMID 12787161. ^ a b KR (2006). "The Son-Rise Program intervention for autism: prerequisites for evaluation". Autism 10 (1): 86–102. doi:10.1177/1362361306062012. PMID 16522712. ^ a b Autism Treatment Center of America (2008-01-18). "Autism Treatment Center of America collaborates with Northwestern University, Lancaster University on scientific research to study the Son-Rise Program for autism treatment and education". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-05-22. ^ a b "History of the Son-Rise Program". Autism Treatment Center of America. Retrieved on 2008-05-18. ^ "Start-up program". Autism Treatment Center of America. Retrieved on 2008-03-30. ^ Kaufman BN (1976). Son-Rise. Harper & Row. ISBN 0060122765. ^ "Staff bios". Autism Treatment Center of America. Retrieved on 2008-06-10. ^ "I Just Want My Little Boy Back" (1997). Retrieved on 2008-05-22. ^ Yamshon L. "Parents given hope…". Autism Treatment Center of America. Retrieved on 2008-06-03. ^ a b c d Hauser C (2005). "The Son-Rise Program". National Autistic Society. Retrieved on 2008-06-04. ^ a b Herbert JD, Sharp IR, Gaudiano BA (2002). "Separating fact from fiction in the etiology and treatment of autism: a scientific review of the evidence". Sci Rev Ment Health Pract 1 (1): 23–43, http://www.srmhp.org/0101/autism.html. ^ Jordan R, S (1993). "Reflections of the Option method as a treatment for autism". J Autism Dev Disord 23 (4): 682–5. doi:10.1007/BF01046111. PMID 8106309. ^ Lack of support for interventions: Aman MG (2005). "Treatment planning for patients with autism spectrum disorders". J Clin Psychiatry 66 (Suppl 10): 38–45. PMID 16401149. Francis K (2005). "Autism interventions: a critical update" (PDF). Dev Med Child Neurol 47 (7): 493–99. doi:10.1017/S0012162205000952. PMID 15991872, http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=313204. Howlin P (2005). "The effectiveness of interventions for children with autism", in Fleischhacker WW, DJ: Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Springer, 101–119. doi:10.1007/3-211-31222-6_6. ISBN 3211262911. PMID 16355605. Rao PA, Beidel DC, Murray MJ (2008). "Social skills interventions for children with Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism: a review and recommendations". J Autism Dev Disord 38 (2): 353–61. doi:10.1007/s10-4. PMID 17641962. External links Autism Treatment Center of America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 " The above really annoyed me because there is no cure for autism, so is 'Son Rise' now going around saying it is a cure? Annoying that it will build up false hopes for some and what kind of success rate does it really have? Does it claim to cure all those on the autism spectrum? " It's quackery: http://www.srmhp.org/0101/autism.html Options Therapy " Options therapy grew out of the book Son Rise (Kaufman, 1976), written by parents of an autistic child. The parents reported that they spent many hours every day mirroring the actions of their autistic child without placing demands on him. They theorized that they could enter the world of their son and in turn gradually draw him out. Following the reported success of this treatment with their son, the couple began charging fees to teach this method in workshops. Questions have been raised as to whether the boy was actually autistic (Siegal, 1996). We could locate no published studies investigating the use of options therapy for autism. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 > > " The above really annoyed me because there is no cure for autism, so > is 'Son Rise' now going around saying it is a cure? Annoying that it > will build up false hopes for some and what kind of success rate does > it really have? Does it claim to cure all those on the autism > spectrum? " > > It's quackery: > > http://www.srmhp.org/0101/autism.html > > Options Therapy > > " Options therapy grew out of the book Son Rise (Kaufman, 1976), > written by parents of an autistic child. The parents reported that > they spent many hours every day mirroring the actions of their > autistic child without placing demands on him. They theorized that > they could enter the world of their son and in turn gradually draw > him out. Following the reported success of this treatment with their > son, the couple began charging fees to teach this method in > workshops. Questions have been raised as to whether the boy was > actually autistic (Siegal, 1996). We could locate no published > studies investigating the use of options therapy for autism. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 " First, good luck on your test ! " Thanks :-) > > > > Found this posted on another forum (copied and pasted below); > > > > Just saw an advert like this in the Leeds Metro newspaper today > > advocating a cure? > > > > http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/email/2008/flyers_posters/uktour_ > > nov08_flyer.pdf > > > First, good luck on your test ! Second, I actually saw this > program being implemented but have forgotten where, most likely the > Discovery Channel. From what I could see from the tapes they showed of > the interactions between parent and child, it may help some. As to the > theory that a child can " decide " to become non-autistic, well that just > doesn't have any proof. > > Kim (SNIP) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 the eye contact thing does happen. I rarely make eye contact but I have had autistic children hold my face and look into my eyes, some briefly and some for a long time. I think this happens naturally when the person really wants a connection and is really comfortable in the situation. I teach children to look towards the speaker and find the focal point that is most comfortable for the autistic individual but I never promote eye contact, It happens in certain situations but it should be totally up to the autistic individual. I think the importance of Son Rise is that it is a recognized therapy, so when I am working with parents I have evidence for them that it is important for them to join the child's world if they want him or her to join theirs. This is unlike most autism programs which do not accept autism at all. Having said that, I do not follow any program step by step. I think that is ridiculous because we are all different and education should be tailored to individuals. Also, parents should be told that no program helps all children and that they should look for aspects that support their child's development in a number of different ways and avoid aspects that do not. I favour teaching parents about autism and then showing them how to use that knowledge to evaluate autism friendly learning strategies. Regarding the House program. I didn't see it so I can't really comment on the program, but I have often seen children who do not share do so without prompting when they make a connection with the other person. It is interesting but I know of several autistic adults who work as teacher aides because they get this connection with the children very naturally. Re: Son Rise I've read about this program and it really isn't a cure. It might work to help some children connect more with the world, but it is far from a cure. What annoys me about it though is the emphasis on eye contact. Never understood the fascination with it. We must be the only animal on earth that "likes" eye contact. All others see it as a challenge and dominance thing. A couple of weeks ago I watched an episode of House, a doctor show. I normally hate those kind of shows, but because the guide said one of the patients was an autistic child, I watched it. It went about as expected: the staff really had no patience for the child and weren't particularly nice to him. Dr House was a little more helpful however. There was a scene where Dr. House was talking about how he didn't pity the child but envied him because the child was completely unconcerned about social rules and norms and was in his own world. That annoyed the heck out of me. While that may be true for a child as autistic as the one on the show, that "freedom" was far offset by the difficulties. Later, it seemed that House researched Asperger's Syndrome. To a degree it seemed to fit him, but one of his superiors called him out saying that he wasn't AS, but just a jerk who was looking for something to excuse his bad behavior. Now, maybe House was AS, who's to say? However, this kind on answer is common for people with AS who have been told they are using this "disability" to try to get their own way or explain their behavior. In the end, the boy was cured of his sickness, not the Autism. However, he did walk over to Dr. House and given House his prized video game, a PS3. The Boy also looked House in the eye, the first time he had ever done that. I also found this annoying because of the implications. First was the annoying eye contact thing, but then also the kid giving up his game. Some might have done that, but given how he fought having it taken away before, it wasn't realistic. My main objection I suppose was that because Dr. House cured the boy of one thing, that that meant there was a cure for Autism too. There isn't. The above really annoyed me because there is no cure for autism, so is 'Son Rise' now going around saying it is a cure? Annoying that it will build up false hopes for some and what kind of success rate does it really have? Does it claim to cure all those on the autism spectrum? One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today! Traveling over the river or through the woods this holiday season? Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 I would not stay away. That allows them to promote myths without contradiction. I think that the positives of the program should be publicised but they should not get away with the "cure" myth. Their website should hold the information that about 50% of children improve social functioning without specific interventions. At the moment, some therapies are investigating to find the characteristics of children who respond best to their programs. I think that is important work. In additon, in my travels on the net I will be looking for adults who went through the program to find out what they think of the program and its impact on their lives. I think that is an important aspect of evaluating programs that people overlook. Re: Son Rise > > "The above really annoyed me because there is no cure for autism, so > is 'Son Rise' now going around saying it is a cure? Annoying that it > will build up false hopes for some and what kind of success rate does > it really have? Does it claim to cure all those on the autism > spectrum?" > > It's quackery: > > http://www.srmhp.org/0101/autism.html > > Options Therapy > > "Options therapy grew out of the book Son Rise (Kaufman, 1976), > written by parents of an autistic child. The parents reported that > they spent many hours every day mirroring the actions of their > autistic child without placing demands on him. They theorized that > they could enter the world of their son and in turn gradually draw > him out. Following the reported success of this treatment with their > son, the couple began charging fees to teach this method in > workshops. Questions have been raised as to whether the boy was > actually autistic (Siegal, 1996). We could locate no published > studies investigating the use of options therapy for autism." > ------------------------------------ FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 grobertson wrote: "I would not stay away. That allows them to promote myths without contradiction. I think that the positives of the program should be publicised but they should not get away with the "cure" myth ... <snip> ... " They don't just promote the cure myth; they promote the quack therapy myths. They promote Auditory Integration Therapy which causes hearing problems -- and sometimes deafness -- for those who are forced to endure AIT. They promote the GFCF diet which has proven to be dangerous -- sometimes fatally so -- to children. They promote vitamin therapy for a difference that is determined by one's genetic make-up and NO vitamin therapy will ever be able to undo one's genetic make-up. There's an old saying that says one is known by the company one keeps. If one chooses to go along with someone like SonRise, they will be painted with the same brush as SonRise. On another note, I fail to see how one can speak of the positives of a program that aligns itself directly with Defeat Autism Now (DAN) doctors, Cure Autism Now and Autism Speaks. Most of us know what DAN, CAN and Autism Speaks stand for and none of it is positive for Autistics. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... Their website should hold the information that about 50% of children improve social functioning without specific interventions ... <snip> ... " If 50% of children improve social functioning without specific interventions either the children were not autistic but merely presented with autism-like symptoms OR the children learned to mimic their peers as Autistics of previous generations learned to do on their own. This does not mean that the SonRise program is effective. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... At the moment, some therapies are investigating to find the characteristics of children who respond best to their programs. I think that is important work ... <snip> ... " Children who present with Autism-like symptoms are the ones that might benefit from SonRise but not Autistics. From the SonRise website: " 3. Can we do The Son-Rise Program® in conjunction with other therapies? Absolutely. Numerous interventions have been used successfully in conjunction with The Son-Rise Program®, including dietary changes (gluten/casein-free), Auditory Integration Therapy, vitamin therapy and sensory integration. This program works especially well with the biological interventions cited in the DAN! (Defeat Autism Now) protocol [end quote]." grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... In additon, in my travels on the net I will be looking for adults who went through the program to find out what they think of the program and its impact on their lives. I think that is an important aspect of evaluating programs that people overlook ... <snip> ... " The SonRise website claims to help individuals with Autism who are over the age of 7 all the way up to adults aged 53. If you write to them directly, they may be willing to forward your request to their clientele so their clientele can contact you directly. That being said, 5 years ago a little boy in Chatham, ON received considerable attention from the media for having gone through the SonRise program and his parents as well as the entire town proclaimed loudly to the media that the little boy was CURED of his Autism. Fast forward 5 years and what do we learn about this little boy who was 5 when he was allegedly cured? He's Autistic again. If the child had Autism-like symptoms of which he was cured, then the cure failed as he has returned to his previous Autism-like state OR his parents stopped providing their child with Autism-like symptoms the interventions and therapies he required. If the child has Autism, then the claim that he was cured was nothing more than snake oil salesmanship on the part of the SonRise consultants and therapists who absolutely wanted to sell a success story to the desperate parents. Either scenario is a terribly sad ... and expensive ... lesson for the parents to learn and what a horrible life for the child to know that his parents and the town in which he lives do not embrace his uniqueness in their efforts to make him "normal." All would have been better off to find out what this child's strong suits are, indulge those strong suits while guiding him in the ways of appropriate behaviour as we would guide any child with or without a diagnosis, and to love him as he is. Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 "I think the importance of Son Rise is that it is a recognized therapy, so when I am working with parents I have evidence for them that it is important for them to join the child's world if they want him or her to join theirs." Yes, well, while I know you have circulated somewhat in the autism community and have interviewed with Donna and given lectures and things, one thing you seemed to have missed out on is the pending blacklisting of suspect therapies and the organizations which promote them. You will find in the future that national organizations on all 7 continents are forced -due to the increasing number of diagnoses of autism and due to the increasing number of studies in the area of autism spectrum disorders- to now examine which therapies work and which don't. This is because their survival depends on credibility. You will find now, and will soon find, many chapters of autism organizations being forced by their head offices to drop the therapies with specious claims and which base their claims on shoddy science. Counselors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, medical practitioners, holistic healers, "alternative therapy purveyors", teachers, entities and individuals who use unapproved medical procedures for treatment purposes and others who tend to be on the scientifically unsubstantiated fringe will soon find themselves free-floating in cyberspace as organizations drop their links and referrals from their websites. Additionally, any person, organization, or entity etc., who fails to take into consideration what the autistic wants will also find themselves blacklisted. This is the one GOOD thing about the skewed media coverage of autism. The media always wants a story that gains readership, and the story they like the most is one in which some autistic was forced against their will to get some therapy and turned out the worse for it. Through the autistic advocacy movement, great steps have been taken to erase the last bastion of discrimination: ie, they are different therefore defective and/or unintelligent and so they don't have or deserve the rights the rest of us have. Thus organizations and individuals, to avoid being roasted over the coals by the media, must tread carefully when "treating" or attempting to "cure" someone who is genetically incapable of being cured. Strict's indignation over the suggestion that autistics, once diagnosed, suddenly require treatment is representative of how every autistic I have ever encountered actually feels including Raven and myself. We are all indignant about people who suddenly see a defect in those they love and suddenly try to erradicate it. (Raven's opinion -and mine- is that help ought to be available for those who want it and that parents have a responsibility to gain that help if it means giving their autistic children an extra edge in the world. But at the same time, neither of us believes anything ought to be foisted on autistics who don't want assistance, nor should any autistic be "treated" or "cured" if the goal of those "treatments" and "cures" is to make an autistic non-autistic.) Now that researchers are studying autism more carefully, they are coming to understand that even those on the spectrum that bang their heads against the wall and self-mutilate can be communicated with provided the right "channel" can be found. Those people presenting with the most extreme cases of autism can indeed make their feelings known. As a result, any practitioner or organization that fails to take the autistic's feelings into account will soon find themselves chastized and ousted from the positions they currently hold. "This is unlike most autism programs which do not accept autism at all." It doesn't matter. There are plenty of opinions about them ranging from those given by researchers to merely editorial conjecture. The conclusion by reputable researchers is that Son Rise is quack therapy and that those who support it are obviously uneducated about autism. "Having said that, I do not follow any program step by step. I think that is ridiculous because we are all different and education should be tailored to individuals." At the risk of sounding like Strict here...what gives you the right to determine what program to follow at all? Being on the spectrum yourself, let's assume I decided that YOU needed some kind of a program to change YOUR behaviors or attitude. Let's further assume that I was in the paid employ of your parents. Finally, let's assume that an agreement was made on the treatment you were to receive. Quack therapy or scientifically proven, if you don't WANT it, what right do we have to impose it on you? If autistics come to you asking for help, by all means give it to them. Otherwise, you may want to think how humane you are to profit over the imposition of therapies on the rights of autistics NOT to have them. "Also, parents should be told that no program helps all children and that they should look for aspects that support their child's development in a number of different ways and avoid aspects that do not." Agreed. "I favour teaching parents about autism and then showing them how to use that knowledge to evaluate autism friendly learning strategies." Teaching them about autism is good. Teaching them how to use that knowledge to evaluate autism friendly learning strategies is NOT. Their personal bias will always factor into the equation and they will always gravitate to those therapies which they -either in their wisdom or ignorance- believe in. You need to TELL them which work and which do not and how to know when a therapy that is supposed to work isn't working. Further, you seem to be missing by a mile THE main obstacle towards good child-parent and child-society relations. That would be the parent. Too often parents impose their own wishes on children, be they NT or Autistic. They also impose unreasonable expectations. They transfer guilt and foist rejection. Parents take a look at any child that is different and say "I am going to make that child the same." The fact is, different is different, and if autistics would be in the majority, would they have the right to "treat" and "cure" non-autistics? Of course not. NO ONE has the right to change another. Yet some people are in the business of doing so and trying to profit by it. In the instance of autism, what you are attempting to do, and what the parents are attempting to do, has been proven impossible by 137 scientists in 50 locations in 9 different countries, because in Phase I of their study, they showed that autism was genetic in origin without environmental triggers being the cause of those gene variations. Phase II of the study -now in progress- has so far determined that he genes which cause autism also control other functions of the brain and body and that tampering with these genes or attempting to "re-align" them through behavioral and even cognitive therapy will have no effect, nor will medicine (seeing as how environmental factors did not cause the autism in the first place, how could one expect medication will). Even as more psuedo-science emerges with weak links and suspected "causes" of autism, the research of the past three years has already disproven them. Which brings up the final point. You may notice that there has been an increasing amount of advocacy in the autism world. Autistics once subjected to "treatments" and "cures" now rally against those who try to impose more treatments and cures on people. What do you suppose the NEXT step will be? Well, descendents of slaves are demanding apologies from the governments who enslaved them and monetary awards. Likewise Aboriginals in Canada are demanding apologies and monetary compensation for the government's putting them in residential schools where they were forced to give up their language and culture and spirituality. We can expect that autistics will begin seeking similar compensation with the difference that they are more likely to win seeing as they are individuals from all cultures who are isolated by their families, or communities or doctors or schools or what have you. So it is in the interest of people who promote quack therapies to give them up now or risk lawsuits and blacklisting in the future. Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 "I think that the positives of the program should be publicised but they should not get away with the "cure" myth. I think truth tainted with crap makes the truth crappy which means the whole mess ought to be flushed. Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 If I thought for one moment that joining an autistic child's work was shoddy science, I would not do it. All I say to the parents who are hell bent on most expensive, invasive therapy is that Son Rise is a well known therapy that uses the technique of joining the child's world. I do not promote any therapy as a cure because I have no intention of curing. I also do not bother with threats of blacklisting. I have life bans in several places. As far as I am concerned if people have such tiny closed minds that they can't cope with different opiinions without threats, I don't want to know them. "You need to TELL them which work and which do not and how to know when a therapy that is supposed to work isn't working." I am not important. I do not have the power of many degrees and a ton of money to give me credibility. People do not listen to my opinions. I have to make links to things which are well known. That statement (in bold) contradicts other statements here. I cannot tell without studies to back up what I do. I know Son Rise does not have supporting evidence. All I like about it is that it was a therapy to show some respect for the child's perspective. I am extremely annoyed to have that information about Donna posted as part of this debate. Donna has nothing to do with my opinions and the interview has nothing to do with my posts here. That information was merely provided as evidence for joining the forum. There is nothing in my posts to connect ne with that part of my life and I feel that trotting that info out in the forum is invasive. I know about the move for evidence based therapies. I hope they really look at the nethodology behind the studies because the therapy supported by the most evidence is based on shonky research. An interesting thought is that every teaching method was once a radical idea unsupported by evidence. Note that I talk about teaching, not therapy. I do not think autistics need therapy. They need appropriate teaching. They rarely get it. I think as a professional, I do have the right to observe a child and try to reach them gently so thatt they can learn. Often children learn far more than predicted as we all know and I have the obligation to facilitate this whenever I can. I also think that if we insist that people stick to evidence based studies and dare not look beyond that, we are going to miss rich information about the best way to teach individuals. I do not know what to do about the problem if idiots who feed their children helminth worms etc. I wish child protection would pick up on this kind of nonsense but the lunacy of some people should not rein in the many who do work effectively with autistic people. There is a diatribe in here about forcing cures on autistics. I would doubt that anyone could find any evidence of me suggesting cures for autism. That is because I have never promoted cure. I think that ianyone who wants a cure for themselves is welcome to pursue that avenue. I don't. I do not presume to cure anyone else and I do not want anyone to cure me. I do think it is important for autistics to find ways to cope in the world so that they can live their dreams but I do not think they should live according to the prescriptions of others. I really don't understand your post. If I was insisting that people take on the Son Rise or any other program, I would understand. I am saying that people need to understand autism to be able to evaluate good ideas. I fail to see how it is "curebie" or "quack" to join an autistic child in his or her own interests and activities. That is what good parents do for any other child but for some reason which is opaque to me, a bunch of people think it is harmful to do that for the autistic people. Your arguments seem to say that you support this refusal to accept stimming as an important part of the autistic world. This is confusing because you also hold views which support autistic rights. I am totally confused by a plethora of contradictions. Re: Son Rise "I think the importance of Son Rise is that it is a recognized therapy, so when I am working with parents I have evidence for them that it is important for them to join the child's world if they want him or her to join theirs." Yes, well, while I know you have circulated somewhat in the autism community and have interviewed with Donna and given lectures and things, one thing you seemed to have missed out on is the pending blacklisting of suspect therapies and the organizations which promote them. You will find in the future that national organizations on all 7 continents are forced -due to the increasing number of diagnoses of autism and due to the increasing number of studies in the area of autism spectrum disorders- to now examine which therapies work and which don't. This is because their survival depends on credibility. You will find now, and will soon find, many chapters of autism organizations being forced by their head offices to drop the therapies with specious claims and which base their claims on shoddy science. Counselors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, medical practitioners, holistic healers, "alternative therapy purveyors", teachers, entities and individuals who use unapproved medical procedures for treatment purposes and others who tend to be on the scientifically unsubstantiated fringe will soon find themselves free-floating in cyberspace as organizations drop their links and referrals from their websites. Additionally, any person, organization, or entity etc., who fails to take into consideration what the autistic wants will also find themselves blacklisted. This is the one GOOD thing about the skewed media coverage of autism. The media always wants a story that gains readership, and the story they like the most is one in which some autistic was forced against their will to get some therapy and turned out the worse for it. Through the autistic advocacy movement, great steps have been taken to erase the last bastion of discrimination: ie, they are different therefore defective and/or unintelligent and so they don't have or deserve the rights the rest of us have. Thus organizations and individuals, to avoid being roasted over the coals by the media, must tread carefully when "treating" or attempting to "cure" someone who is genetically incapable of being cured. Strict's indignation over the suggestion that autistics, once diagnosed, suddenly require treatment is representative of how every autistic I have ever encountered actually feels including Raven and myself. We are all indignant about people who suddenly see a defect in those they love and suddenly try to erradicate it. (Raven's opinion -and mine- is that help ought to be available for those who want it and that parents have a responsibility to gain that help if it means giving their autistic children an extra edge in the world. But at the same time, neither of us believes anything ought to be foisted on autistics who don't want assistance, nor should any autistic be "treated" or "cured" if the goal of those "treatments" and "cures" is to make an autistic non-autistic.) Now that researchers are studying autism more carefully, they are coming to understand that even those on the spectrum that bang their heads against the wall and self-mutilate can be communicated with provided the right "channel" can be found. Those people presenting with the most extreme cases of autism can indeed make their feelings known. As a result, any practitioner or organization that fails to take the autistic's feelings into account will soon find themselves chastized and ousted from the positions they currently hold. "This is unlike most autism programs which do not accept autism at all." It doesn't matter. There are plenty of opinions about them ranging from those given by researchers to merely editorial conjecture. The conclusion by reputable researchers is that Son Rise is quack therapy and that those who support it are obviously uneducated about autism. "Having said that, I do not follow any program step by step. I think that is ridiculous because we are all different and education should be tailored to individuals." At the risk of sounding like Strict here...what gives you the right to determine what program to follow at all? Being on the spectrum yourself, let's assume I decided that YOU needed some kind of a program to change YOUR behaviors or attitude. Let's further assume that I was in the paid employ of your parents. Finally, let's assume that an agreement was made on the treatment you were to receive. Quack therapy or scientifically proven, if you don't WANT it, what right do we have to impose it on you? If autistics come to you asking for help, by all means give it to them. Otherwise, you may want to think how humane you are to profit over the imposition of therapies on the rights of autistics NOT to have them. "Also, parents should be told that no program helps all children and that they should look for aspects that support their child's development in a number of different ways and avoid aspects that do not." Agreed. "I favour teaching parents about autism and then showing them how to use that knowledge to evaluate autism friendly learning strategies." Teaching them about autism is good. Teaching them how to use that knowledge to evaluate autism friendly learning strategies is NOT. Their personal bias will always factor into the equation and they will always gravitate to those therapies which they -either in their wisdom or ignorance- believe in. You need to TELL them which work and which do not and how to know when a therapy that is supposed to work isn't working. Further, you seem to be missing by a mile THE main obstacle towards good child-parent and child-society relations. That would be the parent. Too often parents impose their own wishes on children, be they NT or Autistic. They also impose unreasonable expectations. They transfer guilt and foist rejection. Parents take a look at any child that is different and say "I am going to make that child the same." The fact is, different is different, and if autistics would be in the majority, would they have the right to "treat" and "cure" non-autistics? Of course not. NO ONE has the right to change another. Yet some people are in the business of doing so and trying to profit by it. In the instance of autism, what you are attempting to do, and what the parents are attempting to do, has been proven impossible by 137 scientists in 50 locations in 9 different countries, because in Phase I of their study, they showed that autism was genetic in origin without environmental triggers being the cause of those gene variations. Phase II of the study -now in progress- has so far determined that he genes which cause autism also control other functions of the brain and body and that tampering with these genes or attempting to "re-align" them through behavioral and even cognitive therapy will have no effect, nor will medicine (seeing as how environmental factors did not cause the autism in the first place, how could one expect medication will). Even as more psuedo-science emerges with weak links and suspected "causes" of autism, the research of the past three years has already disproven them. Which brings up the final point. You may notice that there has been an increasing amount of advocacy in the autism world. Autistics once subjected to "treatments" and "cures" now rally against those who try to impose more treatments and cures on people. What do you suppose the NEXT step will be? Well, descendents of slaves are demanding apologies from the governments who enslaved them and monetary awards. Likewise Aboriginals in Canada are demanding apologies and monetary compensation for the government's putting them in residential schools where they were forced to give up their language and culture and spirituality. We can expect that autistics will begin seeking similar compensation with the difference that they are more likely to win seeing as they are individuals from all cultures who are isolated by their families, or communities or doctors or schools or what have you. So it is in the interest of people who promote quack therapies to give them up now or risk lawsuits and blacklisting in the future. Administrator Traveling over the river or through the woods this holiday season? Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 so are you saying that nobody should participate in autistic stims because stimming is tainted by validation from Son Rise? Re: Son Rise "I think that the positives of the program should be publicised but they should not get away with the "cure" myth. I think truth tainted with crap makes the truth crappy which means the whole mess ought to be flushed. Administrator Traveling over the river or through the woods this holiday season? Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 > > I think truth tainted with crap makes the truth crappy which means the > whole mess ought to be flushed. > > > > Administrator > They honed in on one thing, your child is in fact " your " child. connected and dependant real and human, and that being the case you should " join " them. I did this without knowing about son rise. I think they should teach that to parents, and the medical community shouldn't deliver the news that you somehow have a dodo in your nest. That is the damaging message! to seperate the child from their parents by telling parents it's ok not to love this one. Refridgerator mothers???!!! what about the medical community? Save yourself from this heartache and put that child away????? That is their sound medical advise. The AS adults that are in my age range are lucky that they grew up at home at all and despite what they were told they lived within their family's I can only say I am sorry for the ones whose parents somehow thought they bore aliens instead of children Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 > > > I have not seen the episode of 'House' you are referring to, but > could it be perhaps that the boy decided to give Dr. House some eye > contact as a sign of respect, because the Dr. had been nice to him? > Just wondering. > > > House is supposed to be undiagnosed AS, I used to watch the show but it was too much for me. NT's describing what it was like and how people precieved AS. A genius Dr. that cannot see his own differences oh yadda yadda yadda. AS for commerical use and enjoyment wasn't for me. I am sure the eye contact was like a member of a tribe realizing another from the same tribe. slimey television likely. My son would NEVER give away his DS, oh just never. But if he suddenly decided he loved you he would look you in the eye. otherwise not that either. I can only maintain that kind of contact under the same conditions or if I am conveying something really really true and I want someone to get it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 let's all get stimming as a statement on the cure myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 grobertson wrote: " If I thought for one moment that joining an autistic child's work was shoddy science, I would not do it. All I say to the parents who are hell bent on most expensive, invasive therapy is that Son Rise is a well known therapy that uses the technique of joining the child's world ... <snip> ... " You did not read ' comments accurately or properly. He did not say that joining an autistic child's work was shoddy science. He said that shoddy science was being used to promote therapies that are proven to be quackery. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I do not promote any therapy as a cure because I have no intention of curing ... <snip> ... " When you offer SonRise as an option to parents, you are, indeed, indirectly promoting a therapy as a cure. You are giving parents a false hope as they read the SonRise material and see they are offering a cure that does not and cannot exist. You are guilty by association in promoting a therapy as a cure by affiliating yourself with SonRise even on the most indirect of levels. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I also do not bother with threats of blacklisting. I have life bans in several places. As far as I am concerned if people have such tiny closed minds that they can't cope with different opinions without threats, I don't want to know them ... <snip> ... " I am grateful to the MANY 'tiny closed minds' that blacklisted the RANSOM NOTES campaign of the New York University Child Study Centre. That's just ONE example where standing against shoddy science is a good thing. That you are unable to understand that blacklisting is sometimes necessary in order to protect children and those who are less able to defend themselves astounds me as you have mentioned you are seen as somewhat of an authority on Autism rights and children with Autism in Australia. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am not important. I do not have the power of many degrees and a ton of money to give me credibility. People do not listen to my opinions ... <snip> ... " You present yourself as an authority (see your post dated Oct 5, 2008) on Autism and education, children and youth. By virtue of your self-created image, you have created the onus on yourself to speak responsibly. It does not matter that you do not have the power of many degrees or that you do not have a ton of money to give you credibility, you have chosen to set yourself up as an authority. And just so you know, a 'ton of money' does not give one credibility in any field. Creating and/or supporting appropriate initiatives, therapies, projects, et al is what gives on credibility in any field. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I cannot tell without studies to back up what I do. I know Son Rise does not have supporting evidence ... <snip> ... " If you are aware that there is no supporting evidence that states that SonRise programs work and if you know that the therapies they join with are quack therapies that can go as far as to cause a child's death, then mentioning them as a 'possible' option to parents is both remiss, negligent, unconscionable and disrespectful towards the individual with Autism. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... All I like about it is that it was a therapy to show some respect for the child's perspective ... <snip> ... " A program that joins with it therapies that sometimes prove to be fatal to the client does not deserve respect towards the child with Autism. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I know about the move for evidence based therapies. I hope they really look at the nethodology [sic] behind the studies because the therapy supported by the most evidence is based on shonky research ... <snip> ... " And yet you have no problem, as a self-proclaimed authority on Autism, promoting therapies and programs rooted in shonky research all because you are afraid that you might be seen as blacklisting the therapies or programs by omitting them from your suggestions to parents. Interesting. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... An interesting thought is that every teaching method was once a radical idea unsupported by evidence. Note that I talk about teaching, not therapy. I do not think autistics need therapy. They need appropriate teaching. They rarely get it ... <snip> ... " And children with Autism rarely get appropriate teaching because many parents are so busy chasing down information and enrolling their children in programs like SonRise because a self-proclaimed authority like yourself mentions the program in positive terms. By the way, could you please indicate what once-radical teaching idea that is now an accepted teaching idea is known to be dangerous or fatal to the child being taught? grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I also think that if we insist that people stick to evidence based studies and dare not look beyond that, we are going to miss rich information about the best way to teach individuals ... <snip> ... " SonRise is not a 'teaching' program; it is a 'treatment' program presented as a CURE for Autism. You need to understand the difference between 'teaching' and 'treatment' and stop using these two terms interchangeably. groberton wrote: " ... <snip> ... I do not know what to do about the problem if idiots who feed their children helminth worms etc. I wish child protection would pick up on this kind of nonsense but the lunacy of some people should not rein in the many who do work effectively with autistic people ... <snip> ... " Parents who feed chidlren helminth worms, etc., are only doing what was suggested to them by an alleged professional or advocate in the field. That you cannot see that you are aligning yourself with such professionals and advocates boggles the mind. A CURE that is not a CURE and that a CURE that does not STICK is not 'effective' regardless of the diagnosis for the individual. It is as much lunacy to promote SonRise as a possible option for parents to consider as it is lunacy to promote helminth worms, etc. There is a diatribe in here about forcing cures on autistics. I would doubt that anyone could find any evidence of me suggesting cures for autism. That is because I have never promoted cure. I think that ianyone who wants a cure for themselves is welcome to pursue that avenue. I don't. I do not presume to cure anyone else and I do not want anyone to cure me. I do think it is important for autistics to find ways to cope in the world so that they can live their dreams but I do not think they should live according to the prescriptions of others. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... If I was insisting that people take on the Son Rise or any other program, I would understand. I am saying that people need to understand autism to be able to evaluate good ideas ... <snip> ... " Ah but you ARE insisting that people tak on the SonRise program by way of supporting their program which promotes a CURE for Autism which is NOT possible. They are selling a pipe dream to parents who are desperate to CURE their children of Autism. And YOU are supporting that pipe dream by suggesting to parents of children with Autism that SonRise is worth investigating. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I fail to see how it is " curebie " or " quack " to join an autistic child in his or her own interests and activities ... <snip> ... " Joining any child in his or her interests and activities isn't the problem. Any parent who is willing to do the work and read the research and work WITH the child can join their child -- even the Autistic child -- in his or her own interests. One doesn't need a program to accomplish this; one needs to be devoted to their child/ren to accomplish this. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... That is what good parents do for any other child but for some reason which is opaque to me, a bunch of people think it is harmful to do that for the autistic people ... <snip> ... " No, grobertson, what you are missing is that no one thinks it is harmful to join individuals with Autism in their world. What many of us know is that supporting programs that draw quack therapies into them and that promise a CURE for Autism is harmful. That you are unable to understand this fact is appalling especially in light of the fact that you present yourself as a knowledgeable authority on teaching children with Autism. grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... Your arguments seem to say that you support this refusal to accept stimming as an important part of the autistic world ... <snip> ... " No one -- least of all -- has said that stimming isn't important in the Autistic world. Where you came up with that idea is impossible for any reasonable person to understand. Please point out where anyone here has said that stimming is NOT important in the Autistic world. Where in the world did you ever come up with that interpretation of other people's posts in this forum???? grobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... This is confusing because you also hold views which support autistic rights. I am totally confused by a plethora of contradictions ... <snip> ... " Yes, supports Autistic rights and one of those rights is for children with Autism to be protected from therapies and programs that disrespect them as individuals by promoting CURES and joining with them quack therapies. The only contradictions are in your own world as ' position is well-respected in the Autism world BECAUSE he supports Autism rights ... consistently and with integrity. Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 > > > If I thought for one moment that joining an autistic child's work was shoddy science, I would not do it.? All I say to the parents who are hell bent on most expensive, invasive therapy is that Son Rise is a well known therapy that uses the technique of joining the child's world.? I do not promote any therapy as a cure because I have no intention of curing.? I also do not bother with threats of blacklisting.? I have life bans in several places.? As far as I am concerned if people have such tiny closed minds that they can't cope with different opiinions without threats, I don't want to know them. > " Therapy " by definition is something with proven medical benefits: until then, it is, while being studied properly, an experiment, and if evidence is not clear that it works, it then can't honestly be called a therapy. Son Rise is predicated on a false premise: that it claims it can cure, therefore, it can never be an actual therapy, but merely quack like a lopsided duck. > " You need to TELL them which work and which do not and how to know when a therapy that is supposed to work isn't working. " > I am not important.? I do not have the power of many degrees and a ton of money to give me credibility.? People do not listen to my opinions.? I have to make links to things which are well known.? That statement (in bold) contradicts other statements here.? I cannot tell without studies to back up what I do.? I know Son Rise does not have supporting evidence.? All I like about it is that it was?a therapy to show some respect for the child's perspective.? If you can show logic and reason and back it up with a reasonable amount of research that isn't quackery, you stand a much higher chance of being able to persuade people to at least think about what you say to them about things. Credibility is a house of cards: if the foundation is creaky, if you build on top of that creaky foundation, even your slight trembling at the top of the house will cause it to collapse, and any lower level cards (the information you base it on) that collapse will also likely take down the entire house. > > I am extremely annoyed to have that information about Donna posted as part of this debate.? Donna has nothing to do with my opinions and the interview has nothing to do with my posts here.? That information was merely provided as evidence for joining the forum.? There is nothing in my posts to connect ne with that part of my life and I feel that trotting that info out in the forum is invasive. First rule of thumb online: if you don't think you can afford to have it shouted with a megaphone from all the public street corners, you'd better never post it, because regardless of what a single person does, it will be enshrined in search engine caches for an unknown period of time, as well as perhaps many other places: trying to take it back and bury it will be about as easy to do as collecting all the feathers someone lays on doorsteps to come back and retrieve them later, as they'll be gone with the wind to who-knows- where. > > I know about the move for evidence based therapies.? I hope they really look at the nethodology behind the?studies because the therapy supported by the most evidence is based on shonky research.? An interesting thought is that every teaching method was once a radical idea unsupported by evidence.? Note that I talk about teaching, not therapy.? I do not think autistics need therapy.? They need appropriate teaching.?They rarely get it.? I think?as a professional, I do have the right to observe a child and try to reach them gently so thatt?they can learn.??Often children learn far more than predicted as we all?know and I have the?obligation to?facilitate this whenever I can.? ? Teaching, yes: anything that uses shlock as a basis is that aforementioned house of cards. I also think that if we insist that people stick to evidence based studies and dare not look beyond that, we are going to miss rich information about the best way to teach individuals.? Again, see my brief description of the process above... I do not know what to do about the problem if idiots who feed their children helminth worms etc.? I wish child protection would pick up on this kind of nonsense but the lunacy of some people should not rein in the many who do work effectively with autistic people. > > There is a diatribe in here about forcing cures on autistics.? I would doubt that anyone could find any evidence of me suggesting cures for autism.? By logical extension, if you promote Son Rise, you promote forcing a cure: if you believe in it, you believe in the concept of a cure. Think of it as joining the skinheads and the association that has with Hitler and his agenda. That is because I have never promoted cure.??I think that ianyone who wants a cure for themselves is welcome to pursue that avenue.? I don't.? I do not presume to cure anyone else and I?do? not want anyone to cure me.? I do think it is important for autistics to find ways to cope in the world so that they can live their dreams but I do not think they should live according to the prescriptions of others. Again, if you support Son Rise, which claims to cure, the very definition people throw about with attempting to " cure " is to make them other than what they are, and not teaching them, but actually transforming them. > > I really don't understand your post.? If I was insisting that people take on the Son Rise or any other program, I would understand.? I am saying that people need to understand autism to be able to evaluate good ideas.? I fail to see how it is " curebie " or " quack " to join an autistic child in his or her own interests and activities.? That is what good parents do for any other child but for some reason which is opaque to me, a bunch of people think it is harmful to do that for the autistic people.? Your arguments seem to say that you support this refusal to accept stimming as an important part of the autistic world.? This is confusing because you also hold views which support autistic rights.? I am totally confused by a plethora of contradictions. > > Re: Son Rise > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 "All I say to the parents who are hell bent on most expensive, invasive therapy is that Son Rise is a well known therapy that uses the technique of joining the child's world." It also employs therapies which are known to harm rather than helkp autistics and in some cases, there have been lawsuits against the doctors who practice the therapies. "As far as I am concerned if people have such tiny closed minds that they can't cope with different opiinions without threats, I don't want to know them." A very "open-minded" point of view. But one needs to keep in mind that the refusal of some people to accept the fact that medical science has disproven each and every aspect of certain elements of the Son Rise program is closed mindedness. "I am not important. I do not have the power of many degrees and a ton of money to give me credibility." Credibility comes not from degrees or money. It comes from knowledge. I have global connections to autism organizations and autism researchers and my opinions on autism are taken into consideration by all of them. Where do you suppose this credibility came from? I did not pull it out of a hat or buy it. I EARNED it by examining the science, texamining the research, interacting in autistic communities and directly with real life autistics. I got to know family members of autistics. I spoke with people within autism organizations and with medical practitioners and researchers. The end result being that I know more than most people ever will about autism. Credibility also means admitting that one doesn't know everything. I have a lot to learn, and I come nowhere near to possessing ALL the knowledge that is truly necessary to help people with autism. Admitting my faults and accepting that I can be wrong elevates me in the eyes of those who have faced those who ARE stubborn. "All I like about it is that it was a therapy to show some respect for the child's perspective." They are in it for the money, and to that end, they advertise a wide variety of programs that will appeal to any parent with any sort of disposition from quack to hard science. True had science is the best and most direct way top making inroads with autistics. Conjecture and theory and disproven therapies fail. A guy comes into a car dealership. He says: I have a 2.0 liter engine in my car but I want it to perform like a 3.8 liter. I do not want to replace the engine. What do I do?" The mechanic tells him he can make some simple adjustments. What a mechanic ought not to do is say: "Give it a higher grade of gasoline. Give it a different grade of oil. Attach wings to its side. Put a master on a wheel next to the timing belt." etc. Any mechanic that proposed those things, some of which SOUND like good solutions, would be a crook. So why is it that when some people talk of PEOPLE that they can be more carefree about the type of therapies they force them to endure? Aren't people more important than that?"I am extremely annoyed to have that information about Donna posted as part of this debate. Donna has nothing to do with my opinions and the interview has nothing to do with my posts here. That information was merely provided as evidence for joining the forum. There is nothing in my posts to connect ne with that part of my life and I feel that trotting that info out in the forum is invasive." Actually, what happened was, when you mentioned you had dealt with thousands of people in a past post, I did a net search to find out if that was true. That, actually, is the reason I am persisting with this discussion instead of letting it go. You DO have the potential to influence many, and what is alarming is that you fail to take into consideration the opinions of those who are autistic -some of whom are more qualified and knowledgeable than you. "An interesting thought is that every teaching method was once a radical idea unsupported by evidence." This is true. Progress would not be made without outside the box thinking. However, the physical laws that define the composition of the body, and the genetic code that maps it cannot be ignored or discounted or refuted because it is there for all to see as any physical object is. As much as we would like to impose our own belief system on what causes autism and what treats and cures it, we cannot because the physical construct of the body prohibits us from any interpretation other than what it is. A triangle with equal corners and equal sides is an isocoles triangle. It isn't any other kind of triange, or a square, or a poly-hedron or a line or a circle. Autism is autism. There are different kinds of it depending on which genes are active, but autism is autism, and its effects can only be countered in so many ways, these ways being opnes that affect the gene directly. Alternatively, autistics can be taiught coping mechanisms, and they can be taught to rethink some attitudes. "Note that I talk about teaching, not therapy. I do not think autistics need therapy. They need appropriate teaching. They rarely get it. I think as a professional, I do have the right to observe a child and try to reach them gently so thatt they can learn." Yep. Agreed. "Often children learn far more than predicted as we all know and I have the obligation to facilitate this whenever I can." Mmm. Debatable. In my country, everyone is entitled to an equal education under the law, which means everyone is taught the same information. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not to excel. Teachers do need to make sure that each individual is given the same chance, which means each individual will have a slightly different lesson plan. But it is wrong to have the mindest where we think: "That boy SHOULD be learning more and so I am going to force him to do it." "I also think that if we insist that people stick to evidence based studies and dare not look beyond that, we are going to miss rich information about the best way to teach individuals." As far as teaching goes, I agree. "I do not know what to do about the problem if idiots who feed their children helminth worms etc. I wish child protection would pick up on this kind of nonsense but the lunacy of some people should not rein in the many who do work effectively with autistic people." Agreed. But I think the greater danger comes from the less obviously flawed therapies and the parents who, in a misguided attempt to "love" their children, force their kids into them. "I do think it is important for autistics to find ways to cope in the world so that they can live their dreams but I do not think they should live according to the prescriptions of others." Yes, but when the Son Rise program uses unproven or disproven methods on autistics, and when those autistics are "enrolled" in the program against their will, the result is that they live according to the presciptions of others. "I really don't understand your post. If I was insisting that people take on the Son Rise or any other program, I would understand. I am saying that people need to understand autism to be able to evaluate good ideas. I fail to see how it is "curebie" or "quack" to join an autistic child in his or her own interests and activities." Programs like the Son Rise program are dangerous. They know very well what works and what doesn't. They know what is accepted by medical researchers and what is not. They know what government bodies recognize as being productive and successful therapies and what are not. Yet they employ methods that are proven failures, employ methods which have been trounced by reputable researchers, and they employ methods that are outright banned for use as therapies on autistics. They do it because they know that there are portions of their clientelle (meaning parents) that are the kind of people who believe in psudeo-science and conspiracy theories or who are just plain ignorant, and they know that this segment of their clientelle constitutes the majority of their clientelle. If they told everyone who came to them "Autism is genetic. The most we can do are give them coping mechanisms and maybe some therapy so they can release their pent up frustrations" how long do you think they would stay in business? Yet they do because they are unethical and immoral and know that until governments and medical organizations really hammer them, they can still sell their quackery off the end of their wagon. If you lend ANY shred of credence to Son Rise, it means they can continue to practice their quackery that much longer. The Dore group went out of business in Australia. Let's hope Son Rise follows suit. "That is what good parents do for any other child but for some reason which is opaque to me, a bunch of people think it is harmful to do that for the autistic people. Your arguments seem to say that you support this refusal to accept stimming as an important part of the autistic world. This is confusing because you also hold views which support autistic rights. I am totally confused by a plethora of contradictions." There are no contradictions on my part. And by the way, I stim. THomas Adminsitrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.