In youth life was much simpler. Complexity was as familiar as the deepest reaches of space; so ignorantly happy that happiness was never even a thought. But life changes unknowingly, like fearsome tides, like slow growth, like unswerving unalterable death. And our eyes widen to take in a little more breadth of the dark space that surrounds every world. And we grow up a little more with every view, until in the end it's so wide that we must shut our eyes to the Great Panorama for fear it may swallow us into some inexorable permanence of awareness-- like we know and have already seen what it is.

--Closing our eyes for the last time, our hair grayed against the black universe and white-flecked stars-- death the other inevitable, the finale of ultimate awareness, when our eyes roll back just a little too far and breach the dark space behind.

I was lying in bed last night, unable to sleep, thinking about all of this Autism Speaks commotion and I realized that, when the topic concerns a "cure," there really is no fair and just answer to all this.

While I am part of the online autistic community which heavily supports the concept of Neurodiversity and this is where my passion lies, I realize that other autistics-- I don't know how many-- really do want a cure. I won't quibble over numbers, trying to contrast group size as a support to say that the majority's will is the only right answer-- whether that's to cure or not to cure. But when it comes down to it, even if there are only a handful of individuals in either of these two groups, it isn't right for any one person to speak for another's needs. It isn't right for a pro-cure autie to speak for an anti-cure autie and vice versa. And while we may argue endlessly over who's got the best intentions, who speaks for the majority, it doesn't change the fact that when it comes to a cure, autistics opinions are as variable as any other opinion or trait we may possess. After all as the saying goes:

When you've met one autistic, you've only met one autistic.

From a pro-neurodiveristy perspective (I don't prefer to call myself "anti-cure"), I can say that for myself the reasons why I support this movement are as follows:

1. The movement has helped to create a sense of pride for many people who have otherwise gone through life hating and blaming themselves.

2. It promotes awareness of strengths in autism-- the "positive side" you might call it. It promotes the idea that, while as autistics we may have certain deficits, we have strengths as well. Some may use this as a reason to say if the world got rid of autism, these lost talents and perspectives would be a loss to society; I don't disagree with this, but from a more human perspective this isn't the reason we should be valued as worthwhile human beings. We should be valued as worthwhile human beings because we ARE worthwhile human beings, like any other. However, our talents can help us battle against those deficits we do have. It is for this reason that I do not think of myself as "disordered" because I have been endowed with both deficits and abilities particular to autism; clinically, this does not fit the mold of a "pathology".

3. The pro-neurodiversity movement has helped to create a common goal, it has helped to create unity within online and offline autistics who share its philosophies.

From a pro-cure perspective, while I don't agree with it, there are certainly those autistics who want a cure, both for themselves and for future generations, and consider the Autistic Spectrum a group of pathologies. (Although I sometimes wonder whether a desire for a cure isn't actually another form of self-hate, in which case some CB therapy might actually be better.) I can't profess to empathically understand this perspective because I am so passionate in my support for Neurodiversity. However, despite that I support Neurodiversity, I know that I have no right to speak for autistics who do want to support research for a cure.

Were a cure-pill made tomorrow, thankfully it would be up to me whether I took it or not. It would also be up to those who are pro-cure. They would probably take it; I would not.

As someone who supports Neurodiversity, it is wrong for me to try to deny another person treatment they would want to have. On the flip side, it is also wrong for them to tell me I should be cured.

However, as research is going, a treatment for the cure of autistic spectrum conditions is not going to be available to adults. Instead, such a treatment is more likely to only work during gestation (or at the latest, very early childhood). Therefore, the concept of "cure" is up to the parents.

It is wrong for pro-Neurodiversity advocates to speak for unborn children, to assume that these children as adults would not want to be cured. It is wrong for pro-cure advocates to speak for unborn children, to assume that these children as adults would want to have been cured. It is wrong for parents to speak for their unborn children, to assume that their children as adults would have wanted either to have been cured or not.

If at all possible, I advocate for such a decision to be made by the individual him-/herself. But in this case, if a cure is ever available, the opportunity will long predate adulthood.

Therefore, with all three groups arguing against each other over who has the greatest right to speak for a foetus, when in actuality nobody does, we have reached an impass, a question to which there is no simple answer.

In reality, because parents are responsible for their children, such decisions will undoubtedly fall at their feet and not to either the pro-Neurodiversity or pro-cure groups. I can only hope parents start listening to both these groups and weigh very carefully before acting, with the awareness that their child, in either outcome, could regret their decision.

Some who are against the Neurodiversity Movement would say that the entire t-shirt fiasco was a faux-pas, an embarrassment for us perhaps and something we should regret.

Despite that I never like feeling foolish, despite that while I've tried to learn to take criticism well I can't pretend it doesn't wreck me, I don't think this experience was a mistake. Granted, myself and others made mistakes, especially earlier on. We assumed, based on Zazzle's word, that Autism Speaks had attempted to thwart neurodiversity free speech. In this instance, I cannot deny, we were thoroughly and utterly wrong.

But wasn't this just another opportunity for us, as a fledgling advocacy movement, to try our wings and spread them a little further?

As a movement, we are not only young in years but our membership tends to be younger as well. Young-to-middle-aged adults who are not especially experienced in advocacy and legal matters. As such, untrained, flying by the seat of our pants so to speak, it is inevitable that we make more mistakes than other older organizations and movements. Not to mention, as autistics, because socializing and cooperating are usually not our forte, it can make it all the more difficult to attempt to create a sense of solidarity amongst a group of such diverse (and sometimes stubborn) people.

What we have achieved so far, however, is immense, even if it is not keenly felt by the public and the media. Before the internet, there was no "autistic community" to speak of. Just since the 90's has an entire community been formed. In addition, while the gay rights and deaf rights groups certainly have had much to contend with and fight against, unlike us they didn't have organizations (such as Autism Speaks) who fought both FOR and AGAINST them. Therefore, while they were oppressed, they knew they were oppressed and didn't have to fight from WITHIN their ranks to be able to acquire the rights they deserved.

As verbal autistics, we are used by organizations like Autism Speaks to bolster the impression of the 1/150 "epidemic" in order to bring in more money. They dangle our numbers in front of the cameras, for the commercials, for the walks, for the senators and congressmen, and then quickly shove us back in the closet before we protest. At the very same time, somehow we're both included and excluded --go figure that one out; a little GW logic should do the trick. Therefore, when it comes down to it, we're being used without our permission: a violation in its basest sense. And this from an organization who, given their purpose, should know better.

So, my original point: Was this a mistake? Should we regret its occurrence? Should we wish that this whole Autism Speaks t-shirt incident never happened???

Answer: The best lesson learned is not from our successes but from our mistakes.

As I promised Jon Mitchell, I am currently posting a retraction of the earlier t-shirt saga. Zach has finally heard back from a manager at Zazzle's Content Management. According to the transcript of the conversation, the representative had this to say:

Manager: Well we have received letters in the past from um ah Autism Speaks in regards to products with trademark violations so when our um content management staff came across this product they believed this shirt was in the um past correspondence with Autism Speaks but uh they did not specifically call on this product, this was a decision by an employee from content management.

Zach: So this was just a decision by your staff?

Manager: Uh yes, because we thought it was in past correspondence with some past products that were brought to our attention.

So as you can see from the snippet of phone conversation, Autism Speaks did in fact have nothing to do with this incident and it was instead Zazzle staff who made the decision to remove said product. --An employee who perhaps was trying to help Zazzle avoid further problems with Autism Speaks since they had been contacted prior, an employee who clearly needs to familiarize him-/herself both with their own Zazzle User Agreement AND United States Copyright Law.

However, now is not the time for us to slink back with our tails between our legs, because change is definitely needed. We were wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that Autism Speaks' goals and philosophies do not address-- and in many cases even contradict-- the very community they profess to speak for. As Zach states in his blog:

I hope this event can be turned into a positive one in which Autism Speaks works side by side with Autistic People when lobbying lawmakers, and raising awareness. I recognize that Autism Speaks has good intentions, but they should also realize that there intentions do not match with the needs of Autistic People.

Well said, Zach.

I've transcribed the phone conversation between the customer service representative and Zach, for anyone who wants to read it rather than listen. (For the life of me I just couldn't understand what the CS rep's name was, so I've just put [Name].)


On The Phone With Zazzle from Zach Lassiter on Vimeo.

"On the Phone with Zazzle"
Runtime: 04:39
Posted June 25th, 2008

CS Rep: [Name] speaking, how may I help you?

Zach: Uh yes, um I've been trying to get a hold of you guys regarding a copyright violation?

CS Rep: Uh huh.

Zach: Uh, my name's Zachary Lassiter, um, um, but my uh, I had a shirt taken down by Autism Speaks?

CS Rep: Okay?

Zach: Um, I was wondering if you could verify that you were contacted by Autism Speaks to take that shirt down?

CS Rep: Uh, if uh, if someone had sent you an, uh, an email that why you, uh, that that says something to the effect of Autism Speaks had requested that be taken down, then yes, they have.

Zach: Could you verify that that actually happened in this case? I'm actually the owner, I need to verify this stuff, because I'm actually--

CS Rep: Unfortunately as I'm a, a, a customer service agent I don't have that information for you.

Zach: Do you know how I can get a hold of people that do?

CS Rep: Uh yes, you can reply to the email that was sent to you--

Zach: I have been replying to that but I have not received a response back and I would like to discuss this with the people over the phone.

CS Rep: What's, what's your uh, what's your email address?

Zach: Zach at the zach dot net.

CS Rep: Uh, Z-A-K?

Zach: Z-A-C-H.

CS Rep: C-H?

Zach: Yes. Z-A-C-H at T-H-E-Z-A-C-H dot net. You people were supposed to call me back yesterday and they never did... regarding this... [long pause] You still there?

CS Rep: Yes I am.

Zach: Okay.

CS Rep: Do you have, uh, proof of ownership of copyright?

Zach: I don't need proof of ownership. All I can say is Autism Speaks, yes, it's a trademark but it's also covered under Fair Use in parody laws in the United States.

[long pause]

Zach: ... Which makes it allowable for me to legally have that shirt manufactured without violating copyright.

CS Rep: Uh, hold on a second.

[No dialogue from 02:21-03:35]

CS Rep: Zach what's your last name?

Zach: Lassiter. L-A-S-S-I-T-E-R.

CS Rep: Okay, here's what I can do. Unfortunately I can't do, uh um, much at this time because the Manager of Content Management is not in right now--

Zach: Okay.

CS Rep: --and he would be the one that would need to contact you.

Zach. Alright.

CS Rep: Uh... so let me leave him a message--

Zach: Alright, can you just at least verify for me that Autism Speaks contacted you regarding this?

CS Rep: Once again, as I am a customer service agent, I am not privy to those records.

Zach: Okay.

CS Rep: So, uh, in any case I will allow you the chance to talk to him directly once uh, once he gets this message.

Zach: Alright I tried-- he was supposed to calm me yesterday, he never did. Is he supposed to be in today?

CS Rep: Uh, I believe so.

Zach: Alright thank you.

CS Rep: Bye-bye.

Zach: Bye.

As a disclaimer, I should say first off that this is an update from my perspective only; because I can't possibly be everywhere at once, have my finger on the pulse of every thread, or be taken into the confidence of every person or group involved in this situation, my information is limited. Nevertheless, from my POV I'll try to give a quick rundown of events:

Since I last posted, Jonathan Mitchell of autism's gadfly had mentioned that he'd contacted a woman, Dana Marnay, in the Communications Department at the Autism Speaks organization, asking for their side of the story. According to Jonathan, Ms. Marnay responded that Autism Speaks had not instigated the matter, that Zazzle had in fact made the decision to remove the t-shirt for violation of their User Agreement, and that Autism Speaks essentially had nothing to do with it.

Therefore, the problem arises of he-said-she-said, since all current evidence is hearsay, each coming from Zach, Zazzle, and Jonathan Mitchell. Considering this and the possibility that, according to Jonathan, Autism Speaks is denying any involvement, it is imperative that Zach receives a hardcopy of the original correspondence from Autism Speaks to Zazzle (assuming such a document exists).

I personally contacted Zazzle and spoke with a representative, asking about company policy regarding legal matters. The representative informed me that in the case of legal threats, such as this, all documentation is kept on file and that Zach should be able to request a copy of the original correspondence from Autism Speaks to Zazzle. Zach is currently attempting to contact Zazzle and has already spoken to a customer service representative and is now waiting for someone from management who has more information than the CS rep to call back. The CS rep was unable to give any more detailed information other than what was provided in the original emails; he did, however, repeat that if Zach was informed via email by Zazzle that Autism Speaks had requested the shirt be removed from the website, then that is what happened. The rep, however, had no more specific information to give him. Thankfully, as you can hear in the above link, Zach has recorded that entire conversation, also pointing out to a very nervous representative that his use of the trademark is protected as Fair Use under US Copyright law.

I also attempted to contact Ms. Marnay at Autism Speaks to get their side of the story (to find out whether Autism Speaks is officially denying any involvement), but as yet she has not returned my phone call. (I should mention that when I left my message I said only my name, that I wanted to ask her a few questions, and gave my phone number. In no way did I mention the topic of my questions, so her failure to return my phone call is undoubtedly due to some factor other than anything deliberate.) Hopefully I will hear back from her either this week or early next.

In the meantime, Zach should be hearing back from Zazzle management and find out whether he will be able to receive a copy of the original correspondence. If he receives it, Zach hasn't intimated what his next move will be (at least not that I'm aware). Hopefully it will involve contacting Autism Speaks and then contacting the media and letting things snowball from there.

In the meantime-- though I don't know how especially wise it was for him to do this-- Zach has designed a new t-shirt utilizing Zazzle once again:



I have purchased my shirt to show my support. Who knows how long this one will stay up...

As Jonathan Mitchell in autism's gadfly recently wrote:

I decided that in all fairness that I should contact autism speaks and find out what their version of the event was. I talked to a woman in their communications department named Dana Marnay. She stated that Zazzle felt that Zach was violating their terms of service policy for some reason and that autism speaks had nothing to do with this THEY IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM CONTACTED ZAZZLE PERIOD! The decision to pull zach's t-shirt ads they said was entirely Zazzle's autism speaks had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I don't know whether Zach is lying about this or not and I don't know if the letter zazzle sent to him was a fabrication or not. Assuming this letter is not an out and out fabrication on Zach's part, then maybe the representative of zazzle was lying when he told this young man that they were contacted by autism speaks.

If one can believe Jonathan and his blog post, The Zach T-shirt saga: Autism speaks' side of the story, -- which I do-- and Autism Speaks is now officially denying their involvement if they did indeed instigate legal threats, then as the old stereotyped-Indian saying goes:

"Autism Speaks with forked tongue".

However, I for one find it strange that Jonathan reports Ms. Marnay as saying "Zazzle felt that Zach was violating their terms of service policy" when, according to her, Autism Speaks hadn't even contacted Zazzle in the first place. So how did she know what Zazzle "felt"? Did Zazzle decide to contact Autism Speaks about the shirt, a shirt which didn't violate either their own User Agreement OR copyright law? Or did the two organizations get together for a nice coffee and a chat after this story hit the internet blogs to discuss their "feelings"? --I'm not saying it's impossible; but I will say that it's strange for Autism Speaks and Zazzle to be so suddenly chummy if Autism Speaks had nothing to do with this in the first place. Their exchange of communication has occurred too rapidly for me to not grow suspicious of Ms. Marnay's reporting (or I should say "Jonathan Mitchell's reporting of Ms. Marnay's reporting") of events.

What's the point?

In his post, Jonathan makes an important point: despite that Autism Speaks' behavior is not unexpected for those who have lived through the earlier NT Speaks legal saga, we have no hard proof that Autism Speaks did indeed "request" Zach's shirt be removed from the site; we have only Zach's and Zazzle's words.

I should personally state that, despite an unpleasant run-in I recently had with Zach on Wrong Planet forum on this subject, I do believe him. But as a skeptic, as a researcher, I want proof, I need proof. And I think proof is definitely warranted in so serious a case as this-- especially if all this is true and Autism Speaks refuses to acknowledge the threats that their organization may have made.

Despite Jonathan Mitchell's willingness to, in turn, take Autism Speaks' word at face value, he makes some excellent points for which I can only be grateful of this devil's advocate. I therefore responded:

...[T]hank you for pointing out some flaws in all this that others (including myself) have missed: 1) we assumed that Zach's reproduction of the Zazzle emails were true, and 2) we assumed Zazzle was being utterly forthright in its reporting.

I do suspect, given probability, given the format of the reproduced emails, given Autism Speaks' past behaviors regarding threat of legal action online, that all of this can be taken at face value.

However, your critique . . . has brought to our attention that Zach needs to contact Zazzle and get a hardcopy of the original letter/email from Autism Speaks to Zazzle so that, if Autism Speaks did indeed instigate this entire mess (as they claim not to have), they are not able to cover their tracks. . . .

Unfortunately, other than taking a whole bunch of peoples' words, we have no hard proof that:

1) Autism Speaks instigated these legal threats against Zazzle and Zach;

2) that Autism Speaks is now officially denying any such actions.

Therefore, to get something at least in email format, I have written Autism Speaks asking, as a "concerned parent", for any information they can give me in this matter. You may ask why I chose to lie and pose as a parent: for the simple reason that, had I identified myself as who I am, an autistic adult, I suspect I would never receive a response. Which is a sad statement in itself.

I also hope that Zachary decides (hopefully in the very near future) to attempt to contact Zazzle and request a copy of the email or letter they originally received from Autism Speaks. --If it hasn't been deleted or destroyed by now that is. This way, if and when Autism Speaks attempts to deny their actions, there is available evidence to refute such statements.

If Zachary's report is true, if Autism Speaks did threaten legal action against Zazzle and Zach and if they are now attempting to cover that up, then they need to be held accountable. Such behavior may be "morally" acceptable in the world of big business, but behavior like this from a charity organization is inexcusable.

Ah yes, our beloved Walmart of the 501c's, our ultimate conglomerate of charity organizations, Autism Speaks, is at it again. You may recall me writing back in January (however few of you who may read this blog) that Autism Speaks threatened to bring charges against a teenage autistic girl for parodying their website:

Kelly, a 14 year-old autistic girl and member of Aspies for Freedom (an autistic rights activist group), felt strongly enough about [neurodiversity] that she started a website to illustrate some of these human rights issues. It parodied the main page of the Autism Speaks  website, implying that while the organization claims to speak for autistics, it's better at ignoring them instead. She called her website, 'NT Speaks'.

The organization threatened to sue Kelly not only for copyright infringement but for donations lost due to this faux-site and one-millionth of supporter decline; all of this, they felt, totaled approximately $90,000. --However, once Autism Speaks found out she was both autistic and a minor, they quickly dropped the threats and in return demanded her site be taken down. She complied.

I'm no lawyer, but at that time I thought (and I still do) that Autism Speaks did have a legal right to threaten a lawsuit since the site seemed to step beyond the accepted bounds of "parody". I was, however, irate about Autism Speaks' reprehensible behavior throughout the entire situation, using big-business scare tactics to achieve their ends.

Now, given all their money and all their power, Autism Speaks can undoubtedly afford some very expensive lawyers. However, given their past and now more recent actions, I can only conclude they must have some very bored lawyers, because all they seem to do is wander around the internet looking for people to threaten.

--And they've done it again. However, this time, legally, it doesn't seem as though they've got a leg to stand on. --Of course, not to in any way do I mean to imply that this stops them from actually getting their way. All they have to do is talk loud and carry a big stick. And with the amount of money that organization takes in they can afford a very big stick indeed.

Anyways, the latest story:

Zachary Lassiter, an autistic man, designed a t-shirt using an online website, Zazzle.com. The t-shirt was meant to illustrate his frustration with the vast and powerful Autism Speaks organization-- a frustration which many, who know better, certainly share.

The shirt read:


In a June 18th blog post, however, Zach informed his readers that he had been notified by Zazzle that the design would be removed for "violation of Zazzle's Copyright policies". Technically, "Autism Speaks" is a trademark, not a copyright because it is not considered a "creative work".

Under point 3c of Zazzle's own User Agreement, it states that:

In using this Site, you agree to not . . .  upload, download, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that may infringe any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual or proprietary right of any part. By uploading or downloading any Content, you represent and warrant that you have the lawful right to reproduce and distribute such Content and that the Content complies with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances" (Retrieved 06/22/08).

Zach's use of Autism Speaks' name, a trademark, however is indeed protected under the Fair Use doctrine under United States copyright law and therefore not an infringement of copyright law and therefore not an infringement of Zazzle's User Agreement.

Zazzle.com does however reserve the right to remove any content for any reason they see fit regardless of compliance to the User Agreement:

Upon placing your order, you acknowledge that Zazzle may review your order, and the Content it contains, for adherence to our guidelines and compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in this User Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, Zazzle and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the Agreement or is otherwise objectionable to Zazzle. (Retrieved 06/22/08).

Following this notice from Zazzle, Zach responded, inquiring as to whether Autism Speaks had requested the removal or it had been of Zazzle's own accord. He was informed thus:

Thank you for your interest in Zazzle.com, and thank you for publishing products on Zazzle. Unfortunately, we have been contacted by Autism Speaks Inc. and it was requested that these products be removed from Zazzle.com. At the risk of legal action taken against Zazzle and yourself as a contributor of these products, it was decided that it was in the best interest of both parties to have the products removed from the Zazzle Marketplace.

So it seems that, in order to prevent further headaches, Zazzle complied with Autism Speaks "request". Given Autism Speaks' history concerning legal threats, I would imagine "request" is probably polite code for "they said they'd sue us if we didn't comply".

Yes, the Autism Speaks' lawyers are just a little too bored methinks, having nothing better to do than surf the internet all day, drumming up potential lawsuits.

--Personally, I don't half-blame Zazzle; when a huge monster of an organization like Autism Speaks threatens you with a big stick, you run the other way as fast as possible! Had I been the owner of that business, I would have done the same thing.

So what's the big deal???

Freedom of Speech is a very big deal. The internet is one of the last havens for free speech-- one of the ONLY havens for adult autistic people, and our voice gets quashed even here. As autistics, we've dealt with bullies in school, in the workplace, but never before have we been so forcefully silence by the very people, Autism Speaks, who claim to be our voice-- who claim to want to help us.

They want autism cured, eradicated. They pour money into organizations, into research, into lobbying. And provided we, as autistics, simply smile, nod our heads, and say "thank you", we are touted as success stories. But when we disagree, when we speak and say things that contradict the very goals and philosophies Autism Speaks is founded upon, we are threatened and we are silenced. Our vast numbers are included in this 1 in 150 epidemic, but when we call ourselves "autistic" they tell us we're not autistic enough to have the right to speak out and advocate for ourselves and for others.

I'm sure most, if not all, of the people who will read this blog already know and agree with everything I've said. Preaching to the choir, I'm sure. But for anyone reading this to whom this darker side of Autism Speaks is new and as yet unfamiliar, I ask you to please think hard the next time you consider donating, please think of what you're actually walking for and supporting, please think of the associations and the bedfellows you choose to keep. Because there are far better ways to help autistic people than by supporting an organization which so actively discriminates against them.

I've loved Rainer Maria Rilke's Der Panther for quite some time. Probably his best known poem, it's his strongest imagery, that of a panther pacing back and forth behind the bars. I have often thought of myself as the panther.

Below is my personal translation of the famed poem as well as my own drawing to accompany it.

Der Panther

Sein Blick ist vom Vorübergehn der Stäbe
so müd geworden, daß er nichts mehr hält.
Ihm ist, als ob es tausend Stäbe gäbe
und hinter tausend Stäben keine Welt.

Der weiche Gang geschmeidig starker Schritte,
der sich im allerkleinsten Kreise dreht,
ist wie ein Tanz von Kraft um eine Mitte,
in der betäubt ein großer Wille steht.

Nur manchmal schiebt der Vorhang der Pupille
sich lautlos auf--. Dann geht ein bild hinein,
geht durch der Glieder angespannte Stille--
und hört im Herzen auf zu sein.

Translation

His only view is of the passing bars,
so weary that it holds nothing more.
To him there are a thousand bars before him
and behind them, no world.

The soft gear of his strong pliant steps
in the very smallest of circles revolves
like a dance of power around the center
where a great will, paralyzed, stands.

Sometimes the curtain of the pupil pushes itself
silently upward--. And an image enters,
its tense quiet moves throughout the limbs
into the beating heart, ceases, and dies.


©

Somehow, due to our anthropocentrism and long-lived assumption that we humans, while mortal, are entirely separate from the rest of the organisms living on this planet, we've developed a bit of a god complex: sometimes we think we're gods. Thankfully, Darwin and his proponents have helped to point us in a slightly more realistic direction, but even for the most staunch Evolutionists there is still a lingering notion of separateness from the rest of the world. We look down from our mountain, try to remind ourselves that the mountain is a part of the earth and intricately involved with the valleys below; however, being the only ones living on this metaphoric mountain, it's hard to remember that we are more alike than different from our lowly valley-dwellers. Therefore, on occasion we must take the time to exercise our viewpoints and remind ourselves of our relatedness, no matter how much we might secretly disbelieve it.

But despite our relatedness, there are some things which separate us as a species from all other species. It's relative of course, but the gap is wide enough to generalize at least two things:

1) Our incredible ability to design and build technology has helped us forge ahead in the animal arms race. We have not only our cerebral cortices to thank for this feat but also our bipedalism and dexterous hands. Unfortunately, our incredible cortex with its ability to design and plan has not always blessed us with the foresight as to whether such technologies should be built or how we should inhibit their use. (Nobody said Evolution strives for perfection, or if they did they were sorely mistaken.)

2) Aside from our ability to focus our energies outward onto the mechanical world, we are also adept (some more than others) at self-reflection. And it is this which has been both a boon and a bother to us.

I have heard many autistics-- including myself-- complain about the nonsense of human social rituals. There is a certain fakeness to these ritualistic dances, and while some individuals might enjoy the dance for its own sake, others realize it can often be a very complicated means to an end. Upon self-reflection, its possible to see how silly it all is. But does that make social rituals obsolete now that we have the capacity for greater self-reflection? I don't necessarily think so.

And these same dances can been seen in nature; therefore, it's not just the higher cortex that complicates ritualistic behavior, it's genetic tradition. So, perhaps the problem is not necessarily the ritual itself, but our awareness of the ritual and its potential for waste. For instance, a bird doesn't sit on a tree limb after he's finished warbling his mating song and stop to think:

What am I doing? This is all just so ridiculous! Why don't I just fly up to her and ask, 'Hey, do you want to mate this season?' But nooooo, I've gotta put on this incredibly complicated show, have to start building a nest-- a better nest than any other bird, I've gotta do that funny little dance too, just so she'll even CONSIDER having me!

It isn't the dance, it's the awareness that you're even dancing at all. When other organisms perform their social rituals, they don't realize it, they probably don't have the capabilities to realize it (at least for their sakes I hope not). They just do it. Whatever it takes to survive and procreate.

So for humans-- and autistics especially-- maybe the problem comes not with all the little intricate social dances we might take part in, but the realization that it's only a dance, it's only a song, and we're just trying to build a bigger and better nest than the next bird.

Dances aren't bad, but sometimes they can be a considerable waste of time and energy. And I think many autistic people become painfully aware of this. Not all social rituals are wasteful, but many over the millenia have become so complicated that they can squander unnecessary energy, while simpler more direct methods might be more effective.

Therefore, for us mountain-dwellers with our bigger cortices and our skills of self-reflection, maybe we should put our brains to good use again. We discovered fire, we built our weapons, we've made computers. Now maybe we can cull away at some of the wasteful social rituals and keep those that really matter. Instead of gossiping behind other peoples' backs or driving around in big cars to flaunt our money, maybe we could focus on spending time with our family and friends more, giving time to help others who need us, smiling at strangers, opening doors for others, putting other people first once in awhile. All these social rituals help to cement human bonds rather than break them down, emphasizing cooperation rather than competition. Such rituals, like helping an old woman off a bus, stopping to help a stranger pick up dropped change, these are certainly not a waste of time.

Made last night, photography + Photoshop: The Fish Circle.

I'd originally designed it for a logo; however, it's a wee too complex for that. So now, it's art, lol. It's a mix of a picture I took of some carp at the St. Louis Botannical Gardens (Shaw's Garden) and then a lot of cropping, cutting, copying, pasting, drawing, and photoshop effects. I must say I'm rather pleased with myself. Too bad I've only made it 600 x 600 pixels, which will unfortunately limit its print-out size.


© 2008

Isn't it strange, exciting, and a bit eerie how one happenstance can change the course of your life forever?

I am in a place now in my life which I enjoy, and a future I look forward to. I will be going into autism research and, assuming I get accepted, will be attending the University of Louisville and working with my good friend, Manny Casanova. Last night, as I was thinking of this, I was thinking back on my life on the chain of events which, at the time, I would've said everything had gone wrong. But then I look at myself now and realize I wouldn't be here if they hadn't happened in just such a way.

I trace my butterfly effect back to my chemistry teacher in sophomore year. I have a condition known as Irritable Bowel Syndrome and, when anxious, I find my gastrointestinal tract is often affected; I also have a public bathroom phobia, therefore you can imagine how miserable it is to experience the symptoms of IBS while out in a public place. Anyways, it was the first day of my sophomore year. I got to school at my regular time at about 7:30am, all a bundle of first day jitters. At a few minutes before 8:00am, just before assembly, I started to feel it... the rumbling. And since at the time I didn't quite know how to explain my IBS or bathroom phobia so that I would sound sane or convincing, I decided I needed to find a secluded bathroom and just not bother to tell anyone where I was just in case they tried to stop me. I finally found a bathroom beneath the gym in the girl's locker room. And by the time I'd finished and was getting back to class, I was about 45 minutes late. I walked in and the teacher immediately stopped class and came and accosted me for being late, wanting to know where I'd been although at the same time not making it any easier to explain. And so I mumbled something about "bathroom" and I took a seat at the far back of the class. This was a horrible way to start a class I'd really been looking forward to. And apparently, this teacher decided then and there she didn't like me. So in true stubborn teenage fashion, I returned the gesture for the rest of the year and did as little work as I could just to spite her (ah, teenage logic). It was this class, this poor grade-- despite that I still technically passed-- that was my foot in the door for not caring about my schooling or grades unless it suited me. The next two years were very difficult, having many problems with home life, so grades meant even less to me. So, a former honor roll student, I barely graduated high school.

Because of my horrible grades, the only school I could get into was a local community college. And it was during my time there that I came across an add for First Steps, an organization that provided ABA therapy for autistic children 3 and under. Interested, I applied for a job and started teaching a young autistic boy. And considering my job, I thought it would be good to brush up on the literature, so aside from purchasing Uta Frith and some random parental guide books, I purchased Tony Attwood's book on Asperger's Syndrome. And thus my fate was sealed.

Perhaps about a year later I self-diagnosed and soon became a part of the online autistic community, taking part in forums and chats. I spent a lot of time on Wrong Planet and nowadays spend most of my time on my own forum, Gestalt. However, on occasion I have visited Aspies for Freedom (AFF). And it was one time in particular when I was hit with a sudden spurt of boredom, having exhausted all other posting on the other two forums, that I decided to head over to AFF. It just so happened that on that day, a researcher by the name of Manuel Casanova had been invited to respond to a recent news article claiming he was going to eradicate autism (and knowing AFF, this didn't quite sit right with them). Aside from him clearing up the fact that the newsperson horribly misquoted him, it was there that we got to talking. I found his research highly intriguing and he offered to send me a manuscript he was working on if I emailed him a few weeks later. I did so. And we've been good friends ever since. In fact, Manny is going to be my mentor in graduate school, and I am moving to Louisville to attend the university there and to work with him.

But I find it simply amazing, all this. What if... what if I hadn't had an attack of nerves that morning on my first day of sophomore year? What if, for whatever reason, my chemistry teacher had been in a more forgiving mood? What if, instead of thinking I'd spite her by NOT trying, that I'd spite her by getting the highest grade in the class? What if, on that particular day, Borders Bookstore had been out of copies of Tony Attwood's book? Or somebody from First Steps had forgotten to post the advertisement in the building that day?

Just one little change, one slight alteration in placement of the dominoes of circumstance, and I might not be sitting here typing this at all...

No matter the myriad forms the expression of genes may take, no matter the tangible intricacies of the human form, it is inevitably an imperfect art when man tries to label what he sees. A label is necessary in order to attempt to define, diagnose, treat, and communicate this process to other human beings. However, when do we begin to lose those tangible models which aid in categorizing and start to get too bogged down in the language we've manufactured to communicate those models?

There is a cause for every effect and vice versa, and Science's most base assumption is that everything follows set rules-- that everything, in all its chaotic appearance, is somehow orderly and therefore potentially testable via the scientific method.

When it comes to language however, we often don't stop to realize that it is a system of symbols, of metaphor, which we use to generalize tangible or theoretical concepts in order to communicate them. Such language is especially necessary in sciences involving treatment such as medicine, psychology, and other health professions in order to communicate these basic treatment models to others.

But despite its necessity, when does language become a barrier to successful research and treatment? Metaphor may seem to make some basic sense but when applied to a tangible situation, it might fall considerably short. But even scientists in some base manner of speaking are poets: even they have a tendency to latch onto larger paradigmatic models that appear metaphorically sound. --Freud, for instance, is a brilliant example: he never tested and confirmed that there was an Unconscious mind; instead he theorized and applied his theory. But why has the concept continued to pervade Western cultures? Perhaps in part it is because most people think it makes some sense. Most people are aware that certain cognitive functions are out of their immediate awareness; what greater metaphor than to call it The Unconscious and to personify it?

Humans are metaphor machines. It is evolutionarily advantageous to see patterns and learn from them so as to predict outcomes. Unfortunately, we're not perfect metaphor machines, as evidenced by our poor abilities to intuitively predict probabilities. But we're still fond of seeing patterns where they may only exist. After all, isn't it safer to overreact than underreact?

However, when it comes to the sciences, metaphor can be a dangerous tool. Language, yes, is necessary in order to communicate our findings to other scientists and treatment professionals. But it is also a land mine of assumptions, of leaping to conclusions without fully testing, and of ignoring issues that have become part of accepted tradition but have never truly been validated.

One such concept I proffer is: Pathology. Everyone knows what illness is, at least they think they know until they try to define it. Even most scientists probably think they know what illness is, spouting off some form of textbook definition. Unfortunately, it is an umbrella concept which has been a part of human culture from an unknown date and because of its age, it is a concept which has not been fully tested due in part to its vast implications: in order to test the concept of illness, wouldn't you need to test forms of all illness? But there is also the fact that, from a metaphoric standpoint, it seems to make some sense. If a person is dying from cancer, most wouldn't hesitate to call that pathological, to say that person is ill, and that cancer is abnormal.

The definition of "pathology" also seems to be fairly vague. --An excellent way, by the way, to say something scientific-sounding but make it unfalsifiable. It is defined both as the study of disease and the disease itself. And the "disease" itself is considered an abnormal functioning which causes some form of impairment. "Abnormal" is anything deviating from the mean, usually more than two standard deviations. "Impairment" is a decreased ability, or an increase in likelihood of morbidity or death. This means that in order to assess impairment, one either has to measure said ability prior to the "impairment" in order for pre- and post-comparisons or to illustrate that the individual seriously deviates from the larger population mean. Considering most diseases are not monitored in a pre-disease state or that some diseases have no pre-disease state, this means that the more feasible comparison is to compare the individual's ability, condition, or state to the population mean. However, how much does said individual have to deviate before they are considered abnormally impaired and therefore have a disease and therefore a pathology? The answer to that question seems to be: nobody really knows for sure. In some subfields, standardized measures of deviation may be agreed upon and strictly utilized. In other subfields, like with behaviorally defined pathologies, this may be left up to the individual treatment professional.

In addition to the dictionary definitions of pathology, disease, abnormality, and impairment, despite that most definitions don't include it, there is the implication that not only is a pathology abnormal and causes impairment, but this abnormality and impairment naturally indicates the necessity for some form of treatment. After all, that is the entire point to studying, identifying, and treating "pathology" isn't it? To improve the human condition?

Herein lies the problem: where is that boundary between abnormality which could benefit from treatment, and abnormality which is just simply that: abnormal? Sometimes, there isn't a clear boundary; sometimes it is a continuous spectrum, varying from person to person, and many times varying within the same person over a period of time. For instance, Homosexuality at one time was considered pathological; however, no longer listed in the DSM, it is now simply considered a "difference". But why? You ask any homosexual person whether they have suffered because of their orientation and I guarantee you most will say yes. You may argue that it isn't a pathology because the impairment wasn't due to the homosexuality but because of the cultural regard for homosexuality. And I agree, the pathology of homosexuality seems to be rooted largely in the culture and not the individual. But aren't other pathologies similar? For instance, autism and Asperger's people are often the brunt of social torture, and because of this sometimes the most debilitating issue for autistic people isn't that they think differently than others and have a different view of the world, but because of the misery they are in from a world that has largely rejected them. If this is often the root of their impairment, the greatest barrier to happiness, then why is autism considered a pathology? Are not many aspects of the pathology of autism solely rooted in the nonpathological expectations of the culture? I'm sure the same could be said for many other conditions, not even neurological differences, but also many medical conditions. If a woman with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) endures a whole host of other related medical conditions and often has difficulty with fertility, but lighter variants of PCOS have increased fertility rates, where is the pathology? If someone with a small benign tumor on his thigh isn't considered ill but someone with a benign tumor in his pituitary gland is, where is the pathology? If a homosexual man, by having anal intercourse, increases the likelihood of his contracting HIV because anal intercourse increases the risk of infection moreso than vaginal intercourse, where exactly is the pathology?

When it comes down to it, evolution-personified doesn't know what "pathology" is. The expression of genes either increases or decreases the likelihood of disseminating these genes and nothing more. And even with our metaphoric labels it's almost impossible to use them without generalizing far too much, because a word is usually black-or-white all-or-nothing-at-all, while the effects of genetic expression are a symphonic spectrum, a grayscale with innumerable frequencies and combinations.

Therefore, I pose the question: is the concept of Pathology a necessary communicative tool, or are we getting too lost in metaphor and forgetting to look at the tangibility right before our eyes?

Well, as I said in the below post, my Ph.D. program has somewhat drastically changed and I'll be applying to a Neurobiology program instead of an Experimental Psychology program; I'm looking forward to the change and despite some slight hesitation I have at the thought of dissecting dead people, it's something I'm definitely willing to do in order to learn and do the research I want to do. However, because I don't have a heavy biology background in my undergraduate career (something I regret and would do otherwise had I to do it over again), that does put me at a slight disadvantage as an applicant-- although I have other very strong points such as a lot of research experience, a mentor at UofL ready and waiting for me to come there, and excellent grades. So despite that disadvantage, I still feel confident.

And though that I don't relish taking a heavy workload for my final semester of undergraduate (I'll be graduating this December), I feel it would be good for me to try a last ditch effort at getting some hard science classes under my belt. So I will be taking Essentials of Biology, a 5 credit-hour course, but in order to take that, the requirement is that the student either have already taken or take concurrently Chemistry I, a 4 credit-hour course. So, I'll be taking both of those... and it's gonna be one hell of a fun last semester!

::rolls eyes::

And on a similar note, I was glad to see that I've gotten straight A's this semester, except for an Incomplete for the practicum, whose grade I won't receive until next December. It's a nice feeling; the last two semesters I'd managed to get a B in both semesters, which was frustrating. The first B was in Research Methods and I just wasn't able to figure that professor's style out (a lot of people had the same trouble). Her grading was incredibly inconsistent, and there was just so much work that all the little points she'd take off really ended up adding up. The B- I got in Digital Applications: I'm still not sure what happened there. I feel like I did very well, completed all the work, only missed one day of class (and for an art class, that kind of attendance is AMAZING), I tried hard, worked outside of class. I guess the professor just didn't like my stuff. I had originally considered trying to fight the grade because I honestly felt I did better than that, but the business of life kinda got in the way and the professor doesn't seem to be teaching there anymore (we were his first class, and perhaps his last).

I don't mind getting a grade that I've earned. But to feel like I've received grades that were more due to the professor than to me I really feel is unfair. Ah well, life...

I haven't posted to livejournal in awhile. I guess I just haven't really been in a writing/critiquing mood lately. Hopefully that'll change again now that the spring semester has ended and I have the summer off.

But first, some updates on my life (for anyone who might both be reading and interested):

* My intended Ph.D. program has changed. I was originally intending on going into an Experimental Psychology program. However, despite having gone and met with some of the faculty at UofL (the chair, a couple of the professors), I was informed by the chair of the Experimental section that it was impossible for Manny to be my mentor because he was not affiliated with the department. I of course was very upset to hear this and had wondered why nobody else in the Psychology department had seemed to know this. So I emailed Manny and we talked; he didn't really have any ideas at the time. So, very disappointed, I began searching around the UofL website. I finally found a program I could do with which he was affiliated: Anatomy Science and Neurobiology (ASNB). As I gather, it's basically all the anatomy and physiology of early medschool minus the treatment focus. Which means for the past few weeks I've been trying to acquaint myself with the idea of cutting up dead people. But to me, the work is the most important, the particular degree is somewhat inconsequential. And in the Neurosciences, people from very diverse backgrounds can end up doing the same research (MD's versus Psychologists) whereas that's not always the case in other fields. ASNB is a more competitive program to get into, so there's going to be stiffer competition for seats. But I think I've got a good chance.

* I'm still working at WashU. My practicum has been extended till the end of the fall semester (December). Right now I'm basically just doing data crunching.

* I'm studying for the GREs (general) which I plan on taking in early August.

* I've gotten back into poetry a bit-- as you may be able to tell by a few of my poems I've put up on this journal and then have later subsequently removed, hehe.

* I'm still trying to finish off a large art project. It started off in a colored pencil medium but I've now moved it into Photoshop to put it all together. In the end, it'll be 5 ft. x 4 ft.

* I'm still working on the TASEA (adult autism questionnaire). It's now in its second stage of design and I'm hoping to have it ready for the pilot to apply for IRB this summer.

* I'll be graduating with my BA in Psychology this December. I don't walk though until the following May. And with that in mind, I've been thinking about who to invite to my graduation. I've asked a couple people who've all said yes: my mother (duh), my godmother and her husband, Manny, and my friend Amanda who I work with at WashU-- if she's still in town that is because she may be starting her internship next spring which means she may not even be in St. Louis.

* I've really gotten into Yoga. I now do it every day, usually in the evenings. I often follow that up with cardio. I've made a decision to improve my health more via exercise and also to cut food portions. It's working out well so far and I'm feeling better. Despite that I have problems with low blood sugar, the exercise does wonders at keeping that from happening.

* I'm probably going to be visiting Louisville again this summer (July) to go apartment hunting. It will also be my first roadtrip alone. I'm planning on purchasing a good number of CD's to keep me entertained.

* For the spring, when I've graduated and have little to do between then and the time I move, I'm considering maybe taking a math course, since I'll need more math for graduate school.

Hmmm... I think that's about it. That's my life right about now.

For those unfamiliar with the Autism Research Institute (ARI), despite its reputable-sounding name, its research seems anything but. I consider myself an autism advocate: I advocate for myself and I would like to advocate for those on the spectrum to live happy fulfilling lives (this does not mean though that they necessarily need to be "normal" in order to do so).Therefore, it comes as little surprise that I consider such an organization as ARI harmful in that it treats autism as a demon personified, trapping small children in lonely worlds; however, also, it professes that autism is a separate entity from the child and therefore worthy of loathing (Defeat Autism Now!). Autism is the perpetrator and the person with autism is the victim. Such an attitude teaches a person that they are broken and diseased. And while it is easier to separate a diseased leg from one's personality, try separating the brain.

ARI instead is better at propagating desperation (usually that of the parents) and spreading false hope. What is wrong with some false hope you ask? Perhaps you should ask those people who fell victim to various televangelists like Peter Popoff
or Jim Bakker.

It comes as a great shock that the Institute's original founder, Bernard Rimland, was a vocal proponent of the Mercury-Autism Hypothesis, particularly given his strong beginnings in turning the tide of autism theory from the Refrigerator Mother to acceptance of autism as a neurobiological developmental condition (see his 1964 book, Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior).

Nevertheless, the Institute is not held in particularly high scientific regard, and given its publications (one of which I will critique below) that comes as little surprise.

Critique on the ARI article, Preliminary Results of 3rd DMSA Study by Adams et al.
http://www.autism.com/danwebcast/presentations/anaheim/adams.pdf

I would like to say first off that I do not believe autism is caused by mercury poisoning. However, given newer research on immunology and oxidative stress in autism, I do feel that something is going on, perhaps involving vaccination as one agent of effect. However, given postmortem evidence of brain anatomy in autism, it is clear that the development of autism begins in early utero, far predating vaccinations.

That said, my critique point by point:

Methodology:

1) The paper states that this is a double-blind study, implying that there is a control group. Yet in this article, they report no results on the controls. Therefore, the reader is unable to contrast and compare results between the two groups.

2) There is no mention as to how the participants were recruited and how they were chosen to take part. Medical establishments? Autism Speaks? CAN? Local churches? Where they all given the ADOS and any child who tested in the autism range was included? This is important because, without knowing where the participants came from, there's no way to accurately judge that this was an unbiased sample and an unbiased sample is vital to do the statistical analyses these researchers performed.

3) In this study, the ADOS was given to the participants following treatment 1 and then treatment 2. I have a big problem that the researchers gathered no ADOS scores prior to the children beginning the study, thereby giving no baseline score for comparison.

4) The researchers give no background information on any of the participants. There is no indication as per the ages of the children nor a listing of other medicinal and nonmedicinal treatments these children may or may not be receiving. Various medications do have effects on the body's oxidation. Also, was the control group required to be medication-free? If so, that has the potential for a huge confounding effect. And if any of the experimental kids were receiving behavioral treatments, this went unanswered. Any of these factors could be playing a part: natural development with age, medication, or other treatment plans which are taking place concurrently or prior to the study.

Results:

5) 80 began the study, only 40 finished. Even though this is enough to resemble some sort of statistically normal distribution, 40 is still a very small number for these researchers to recommend glutathione as a treatment for autism.

6) The results of the study were compared to both parent impressions (general interview as well as ATEC) as well as the ADOS. I have two issues with this: a) yes, parents should be asked of their opinions; however, in such a study, more objective measures should be used and biased opinions avoided. The ADOS, I have personally learned, is an adequate tool for diagnosis of Autistic Disorder and PDD-NOS in young children. However, it is a poor tool for differentiating within the spectrum. Therefore, it should not have been used to detect a change in severity, especially when the shifts in severity were so subtle. For measuring such severity, it is an inadequate tool.

7) With the ADOS, I would've liked to know who performed the first and the second ADOS. Were they the same people, potentially introducing bias? Or different people who might score the same child slightly differently? There is no mention as to who performed these tests except that they were "qualified".

8) As for the correlation between excretion levels and ADOS, this to me spoke mountains. The most significant correlation between excretion levels and ADOS scores following the first dose was 0.36. For a little background on correlations, here are the ratings of correlations:

0.0-0.2 = no correlation
0.2-0.4 = low correlation
0.5-0.7 = moderate correlation
0.8-1.0 = high correlation

These occur in both positive and negative ranges, with negative numbers indicating a negative (or inverse) correlation. Most researchers view correlations that aren't moderate or higher with due suspicion that the result was potentially coincident. Following the 9th dose, the highest correlation is 0.35 (another low correlation). Yet these results are espoused as being significant. Therefore, all scores ranged from low correlation to no correlation at all.

9) I take issue with a study that uses a quote to make its conclusions-- a quote nonetheless originated by the leading researcher in this study:

Finding lead or mercury in an autism victim is like finding a bullet in a homicide victim-- further investigation needed for 100% certainty, but in both cases it is highly likely that one caused the other (Adams, 2007).

Why is this a problem? Well, first off, it's clear that Adams has already made up his mind before even performing this study, which makes him a prime candidate for accidental or intentional experimenter bias. He also proposes that finding lead or mercury in autism is the guilty bullet having caused the conditions; and if that is his logic, then every child in their study should've been a "homicide victim" since every person, autistic or not, has mercury and lead in his/her body. On the same note of logic, that would also imply every person is autistic.

10) Before performing further replication studies, the researchers of this study are already recommending longer treatments for those whose lead levels were still "high". I.e., they're recommending a treatment before having tested whether it's sound and relatively risk-free without having studied the effects of longer durations, but at the same time they continue to state that more research is needed before the treatment should be recommended. Double-talk.

11) From a single study, they have concluded there are no adverse side effects on general health.

12) Despite the low correlations, they even bolded their conclusions that higher excretion decreased severity as measured by the ADOS, using techniques like bolding or highlighting to make their point stick despite that it's a weak one. An advertising technique. In science, if the results are significant enough, no amount of bolding or highlighting is ever necessary.

13) Their final conclusions stated, "Glutathione, lead, and mercury are linked to severity in autism, and to improvement due to DMSA." This statement is prematurely false. They proffered no evidence in this study directly linking higher mercury and lead levels to their autism participants. The authors have automatically jumped that extra step and assumed correlation is equivalent to causation (and low correlations at that). For instance, if indeed there are higher levels, it could be very well that autism is the cause of higher levels of mercury and lead, rather than the reverse.

14) Despite that the paper is called the 3rd preliminary study, there is no review of previous results. Did the current results hold true to previous ones? Do they differ? Did the methodology differ? There's no indication.

15) The article gives no indication as to having been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I assume this means it hasn't been published except online by ARI who was funding the research.

I don't mean to say that the only place for publication is in established journals, no. What is important is the peer-reviewed process. And there is no such indication for this article.

My Conclusions:

This was a poor study, with researchers who seem to have made up their minds before performing the research and whose bias, either accidentally or intentionally, affected the design of the study. The methodology was poor, the reporting of said methodology was poor, making replication impossible. This study has been designed to only be replicated by the ARI researchers and therefore impervious to true scientific scrutiny.

My professor told me about an upcoming exhibition he's helping to put together and would like me to be a part of. After showing him some of my photos from my newest interest (digital photography), I'm thinking of entering some of those rather than any of my drawings (I have a hard time letting go of originals). These are the ones I'm currently thinking of submitting as a single series:


© 2008


© 2008


© 2008


© 2008


© 2008


© 2008


© 2008

Post your autism story here.

My Autism:

Like any life, some days are beautiful, some are miserable, and many are in between. My life consists of thought, of observation, of experience, and some confusion. I set goals, I plan (sometimes), I achieve or I fail. What makes me so different?

But I have felt different my entire life, only to be diagnosed in adulthood. I didn't know why early on, I was just "me" and I still am, only with a label and a better focus on how to interpret myself and the world around me. I consider Autism as my little instruction booklet to myself, a manual that helps sum up my difficulties and my abilities, though by no means defines me.

I am considered "high-functioning" despite that I've come to detest these sorts of labels (they denigrate any difficulties I may have: "successful" does not necessarily equate "easy"). Much of my social life consists of online chats and forums. Occasionally I feel lonely; most times, I'm too distracted by interesting things, such as studying or making art, to have the focus to truly care. I can be friendly, self-confident, funny, and painfully shy. Sometimes I need a change; most times I find comfort in my routine.

My interests are my life. I'm going into research. I'm both analytical and creative, however oxymoronic that may seem. I am a scientist in the art studio: picking apart behavior, designing questionnaires, inputting data-- drawing with colored pencils or fine graphite, painting in acrylic or water color, photographing nature or architecture. Always keeping an eye out for interesting angles and compositions, be they in art or science.

I worry about my future-- not so much my career, but my life as a human being, as a social creature designed to relate to other human beings-- though I'm clearly not designed so well in that respect. I worry about intimacy, about finding another person to share my life with, be they a wonderful friend, partner, or both. I worry about being seen as an equal, as a mature person by other people, yet at the same time I worry about not finding someone to mentor me in the things in life which I just can't seem to learn as naturally or as quickly as others. 

I am happy, but I worry that my happiness rests like on the edge of a knife ready to fall to either side and pitch me into misery. I worry that my happiness is dependent upon life's Predictability, Calmness, and Financial Stability moreso than most people-- each of these which, everyone knows, is rarely predictable and that few people go through life unscathed by this trio's inconsistency. 

I worry about large and small things. And I find enjoyment in large and small things. The large: in thinking one day I'll be successful in my chosen field. The small: such as enjoying a trip to Walgreens and buying some small trinkets that I loved in childhood and have never truly outgrown. --The feel of sun on my face after winter especially that first warm day, watching cartoons, and sadness knowing that one day, drawing nearer, my mother will pass away and my life, an extended childhood, will leave me and I will change forever.

I am autistic, but all these things, these worries and blessings, abilities and difficulties, though particular to me are not unlike those things most people enjoy and worry about. I suppose my point is this: despite that my brain is statistically ab-normal, despite that I have a label, despite that I may even view and experience the world in unusual ways, I am not so different. I am beautiful and ugly, happy and miserable, like any human being. And I am as much a Disorder as anyone else.