My Reality versus Your Normality

You want to know what really irks me? When people say that I "constantly remind people" of my autism, or my Jewishness, or my queerness. That I "always bring it up", and that they don't mind that part of me, in fact they love me very much, they just wish I didn't "constantly bring it up."

At first, I took this admonition seriously, and more or less stopped talking about autism, Judaism, queer issues, and myself in the context of the two. But when I was making a concentrated effort to not talk about these aspects of my personality, I started observing what happened when neurotypical goyishe heterosexual people talked about themselves, and- chee! They drop hints about their religious/ethnic background, their sexuality, and their neurotype all the time. They talk about going out to dinner with their girlfriend, whether or not it was a "proper girly gift" to get her say, a Nintendo DS, about possibly getting married and having children, about going to concerts, plays, and other events where I need earplugs, talk about social interactions and make sweeping generalizations about how people act in these situations, and talk about how they are going to spend their Christmas, or what they're going to have for Easter dinner with their families.

Really now, how is that any different from when I talk about my girlfriend, about our somewhat limited choices in terms of marriage and children, about why I can't eat bread today because it's Passover, or how I usually date within my own neurotype simply because it's more compatible?

The answer didn't come to me until I started thinking about what these three qualities have in common, besides being shared by me: The problem lay in the fact that neurotypicality, coming from a Christian background, and heterosexuality are considered the "norm". When you talk about them with "I" or "Me" language, you are simply describing something you assume everyone, or the majority, shares with you. When I talk about my three differing traits however, I'm seen as asserting a difference, and that makes people feel uncomfortable, because it pushes away their expectations of what's "normal" and expected.

Either way, I can't not talk about these things. They are a part of me and my life. I just hope they will some day be respected as normal and acceptable to talk about without being seen as "pushy" or "constantly reminding" every time I try to have an ordinary conversation. What's normal for me may not be normal for someone else, and that goes for everyone. Nobody's back story or facts of life should be treated as the absolute norm, because it inherently builds a fence around a rather small section of a very big, beautiful garden.

A quick link: Our Voice: Rethinking Autism

I saw this on a friend's facebook page. I recognize a few of the names on there, such as K Bjornstad, the beginner of Autistics Speaking Day and blogger at Katy Doesn't Live in Smithton, and Steven Knapp, whom I'm collaborating with on a project.

Enjoy Our Voice: Rethinking Autism: Here at this page:

http://www.rethinkingautism.com/RethinkingAutism/Our_Voice.html

The difference between Autism Awareness and Autism Acceptance

If you're actively involved in autistic self advocacy, are autistic yourself, have an autistic sibling, an autistic friend, an autistic partner/spouse, an autistic child, or an autistic friend, you have no doubt run into an "Autism Awareness" event, either advertised on the internet, or gone to one in your community. They're usually marked by an emphasis on children with autism, a plethora of puzzle ribbons, and a decided feeling that it is not for autistic people at all, but rather, designed for relatives (read: Parents and guardians) of people with autism. These events usually don't take place in autistic-friendly environments, have loud noise, large crowds, and sickeningly bright and flashy décor as part of the package. Usually the speakers will be doctors, parents, representatives from charities, but rarely autistic people themselves. The focus of these lectures will typically be how to curb or mask autistic behavioural traits like stimming, the latest in ABA techniques, or sales representatives for chelating agents and alternative medicine.

Sometimes this isn't the case, but let's face it: Autism Awareness is so 20 years ago.

Back when autism was a relatively unknown thing, occurring in a scattering of families who didn't particularly talk about it publicly or bring their children out to play with others or integrate them into regular schools, an Autism Awareness event made more sense.

Nowadays though, with 1 in 100 of us having some form of autism, the spectrum being recognized as varying from nonverbal to chatterbox, and every teacher, caretaker, doctor, therapist, and babysitter knowing about autism, Autism Awareness doesn't make sense, either as a phrase, or as a marker for an event about autism. The misconceptions are still rapid and widespread, but Autism Awareness doesn't seem to be working towards rectifying the stereotypes. Since the events are typically put on by non autistics for non autistics, they do little to reach out to autistic adults who may be starved for the chance to enrich their lives with knowledge of their disability and resources, or even get a diagnosis.

But an event geared towards Autism Acceptance can make a fundamental paradigm shift in public events geared towards autism a reality. Autism Acceptance forces people to re-examine their prejudices, find out what it means to be autistic from an autistic person, and takes the focus off of curing and more on improving the quality of life of autistic people who need help now in building and maintaining productive, meaningful lives.

So, next time you see one of these events, I dare you to ask the coordinators, either in an email or in person, what they hope to accomplish with their event, and challenge them to rethink doing an Autism Awareness event, and gear it towards Autism Acceptance. Tell them what a difference it could make to reach out to autistic adults in their community by asking them to be involved with their project. Ask them to book an autistic speaker. Ask about putting it in a sensory-friendly environment or making a sensory friendly environment so autistic people won't be alienated from attending.

Or better yet: Put on your own. Start small and work your way up. You never know what will come of it.

Oy Vey! Enough already with the NPR and the autism and the fail!

If it weren't for my long-standing crush on Ira Glass (Men with glasses, sorry!) and the fact that I notice a positive correlation between the amount of novels written by modern authors I read with my NPR reader/listenership, I'd probably be fed up already with their reporting on autism and call it quits. A few days ago, I posted on their coverage of Asperger Syndrome in the DSM and the amount of frustrating untruths and generalizations found in the interview. Now, I find myself infuriated at them again today, with an article about autism and oxytocin, titled, "Scientists Test 'trust hormone' for Autism Fight".

The title alone is problematic. Who's fighting autism here? What's there to fight about autism? Are we at war with something or someone? Is there some sort of grand battle here? And if so, can I commission an army of orcs?

I am already familiar with stories on oxytocin being used as a way of improving the behaviour of autistic children. I'm curious to see how it affects people like me, who have issues with intimacy and touching, but not until there's some solid science behind it. Especially for use on children, who may suffer more than an adult from negative side effects of unregulated drug use. It may prove helpful in the future, not a silver bullet that will magically make us neurotypical and cuddly teddy bears.

The way that this article was worded, you would think we were facing a life-or-death situation here. The word "hope" is tossed around like parade candy. It throws in the obligatory reference to a parent's struggle to find a miracle. To NPR's credit though, they point out that the research is not thorough enough to start spraying autistic children full of the stuff, lest there be long term side effects they are not aware of. I was grateful for that, home remedies often cause much suffering for autistic children. Chelation, anyone? The effects were well-described. It may help us improve our facial recognition techniques, and could possibly enable us to be more sociable.

But then, I saw the part of the article that made my eyes bulge out of my skull: Their choice for an interview on the possibilities of oxytocin was the Chief Science Officer of Autism Speaks. No autistic people were interviewed to give their opinion on the use of it. Not even someone from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, or someone who had tried oxytocin before, or someone with issues the drug could alleviate, not a single one.

Once again, autistic people have been erased from the conversations that affect us most. NPR has decided that our thoughts and feelings on this important issue are not important enough, all things considered, to be included. Instead, they rely on someone from an infamous anti-neurodiversity anti-autism organization which makes money off of characterizing people with autism as objects of pity and autism as a monstrous force of nigh unstoppable evil.

It is unacceptable in the 21st century, the age where we have more visibility now than ever, in the age of Temple Grandin and Donna Williams, that a highly respected news organization relies still on the opinions of outsiders, rather than the disabled individuals themselves. This is way outside the norm of the disability community, and it needs to change. It's almost enough to make me wish that I had, as I originally planned when I started college, gone into journalism. It appears that neurotypical journalists from major organizations don't have much of a clue on how to respectfully report on autism and life with autism.

A long-standing motto/pledge of the disability community has been, "Nothing about us without us", NPR. And this is about us. Not about parents being provided with "hope". We're the ones who will suffer the long term consequences, if any. Why not give us a voice? That gives us more hope than any untested drug will.

The Horse Boy book review part II: The journey and aftermath of Mongolia

When I last left off reading and reviewing the Horse Boy, Rowan, Rupert Isaacson, and Kristin Neff were on their way to Mongolia via the UK, and were about to arrive in the capital city of Ulan Bator, which is, according to Rupert Isaacson, a depressing, ugly sight, "a carbuncle on the face of one of the most unspoiled, most intact ecosystems left on earth." My my.

But as it is, they're only staying a few days there, before they head off into the wilderness to meet various Mongolian shamans, and maybe establish contact with the enigmatic Deer People, that is, Northern Mongolian reindeer herders.

The "crew" consists of Tulga, a guide, his nephew/assistant Bodo, the film crew, Rowan and his parents. I must admit, I cocked an eyebrow at there not being a medical doctor present. Not just because of Rowan being autistic and possibly needing a doctor there in case of a major emergency, but for the sake of the rest of the crew. If someone were to break a leg, or be trampled by a horse, or get bitten by an insect or a snake, would there be a hospital available quickly in any way other than emergency airlift? It seemed like an oversight to me not to have a doctor on the team so that if something were to happen, something could be done by a medical professional.

But I digress. the next order of business was the first Shaman ritual,at the base of a sacred mountain, where nine Shamans would work on Rowan. But first, a trip to a museum and an amusement park. At the amusement park, Rowan was stared at, as any autistic five year old with a film crew of his own would in any country. But Isaacson noticed something different about the attention the Mongolian people gave Rowan from the attention he received from Britons and Americans:

They were curious about us- You'd have had to ad to be inhuman not to be, as a five year old whizzing about the crowds with a film crew close behind would attract attention anywhere. Yet, once the first surprise was over, everyone tolerated Rowan's pushing, yelping, and joyful rushing about with a good humor quite at odds with what we had come to expect in the United States and Britain, when Rowan was at his most autistic. Here, it was as if we- he- were somehow being accommodated, not merely tolerated, despite the spectacle we were making as we thundered about in his wake like photographers behind some diminutive model or movie star.

Previously, we had been told in America that when Rowan would act oddly or lose his temper in public, the common reaction was tut-tuts of shame at the parents not controlling him, or even coming up to Rowan's parents to inform them that they were failures as parents for not controlling their child's behaviour in public. Isaacson it had been a small comfort to snarl back, "He's autistic, what's your excuse?" and have the people retreat in embarrassment. This Mongolian mode of treatment of the parents seemed preferable to me, even though I don't know exactly what they were thinking. Causing stress and public humiliation to parents of a disabled child does a disservice to everyone. It stigmatizes the disability, hurts the parent-child interactions, and makes life more difficult for all.
The next day, Rowan & Co. set out to meet the Shamans for leg one of the journey. They gave thanks to Isaacson, explaining that under Communism's rule, Shamanism had been repressed, and he was assisting in the comeback of the old folk religion, not only by bringing Rowan, but I think the cameras and the eventual film would help shine a light on the significance of the religion to the shamans.

The ceremonies involved yak's milk, vodka, and elaborate, repetitive chanting and drumming. Honestly... While some parts of it didn't seem so bad, a few moments made me severely uncomfortable:

Still, once in the shaman's arms, to my great surprise, he went quiet and still. Until the assistant passed her spiritual mistress a bottle of vodka, from which the shaman took a hearty pull, then without warning spat the liquid over Rowan's face and body. The result was predictable:

"Gi-RAFFE! GOTTA GO HO-O-OME! FREY-ENCH FRY-YI-YI-YES!"

I'm twenty-one years old, mostly a placid person, and not much can surprise me. But someone spitting vodka all over me without warning would illicit some major screams and howls of pain and disgust. Especially if it got into my eyes, nose or mouth, which I suspect may have happened to Rowan: alcohol of all kinds, let alone straight up vodka, is very flammable and stings the skin upon contact, but in the eyes, nose or mouth, it downright burns.

I honestly think doing that, regardless of the cultural context, was cruel.

But that doesn't even begin to compare with the discomfort I felt for Kristin, Rowan's mother:

"Er.... the shaman says that when you were pregnant, black energy entered you womb. You must take this vodka and cleanse the, um, parts where Rowan came down."

Kristin looked at him a moment. "You're saying I have to take this bowl of vodka and wash my vagina out with it?"

Tulga looked at the grass. "Um... yes, the shaman says is (sic) very important.

Kristin took this all very well, joking about photoshopping out her cellulite and washing the C-section scar with the vodka while it was filmed. But I was mortified. Again, alcohol burns when it comes into contact with certain tissues, and I can't even imagine the horrible burn of having to douche out your vagina with vodka, let alone the consequences of the PH balance of the vagina being thrown off or drying it out.

At this point, the skeptic in me was inside screaming "How can you read about this! This makes ABA and refrigerator mothers seem tame in comparison!" And it's true. The idea of black energy causing autism was very anti-neurodiversity. Saying the womb was entry for this black energy was akin to autism's discovery and the coining of the refrigerator mother hypothesis. I just could not wrap my head around either Rowan being sprayed or this douching to be acceptable. I wasn't particularly expecting a neurodiverse view from the Shamans honestly, but having vodka spat onto Rowan took me aback.

It continued with Rowan's parents being whipped by the shaman painfully. Rowan, mercifully, received a more humane whipping, and he was described as being giggly and cooing throughout the whipping, so I was slightly relieved. But at this point I was seriously beginning to worry about this. It was not good that we were only two days into Mongolia and I was already getting sick to my stomach with horror at what was being done. I just hoped that future treatments would be more humane, and that this was just something akin to hazing from a sorority or fraternity at a university.

The next chapter detailed the shamans asking Rowan's mother Kristin if there had been anyone on her side of the family "like a shaman", who perhaps had been "oversensitive of the mind" and "not entirely stable". The shamans were alluding to a close relative, as a type of spirit, disrupting Rowan, and black energy related to water, that black energy had entered Kristin's womb while she had been in water, and this unhelpful ancestor and the black energy were part of Rowan's autism. Anyone familiar with cold reading can see that this isn't exactly a revelation. Most people have a female relative, and almost all families have a relative who has some type of mental disability or may be considered eccentric or unstable, and in many cultures, women are considered more susceptible to mental illness, or at least were more likely to be diagnosed as having something wrong with them if they deviated from the norm. So these small suggestions could have Rowan's parents overthinking and experiencing pattern recognition when there is none. Humans are absolute devils about seeing significant connections that don't actually exist.

At this point, they set off in a van for outer Mongolia to meet more shamans. There is, according to the narrating Isaacson, a decided improvement in Rowan's behaviour. He is speaking in more fluid sentences now, possesses a larger vocabulary, and says "please" and "I love you".

But then an unusual occurrence takes Isaacson by surprise: Rowan refuses to ride the Mongolian horse that he had fitted for them to ride together in the wilderness, opting to stay in the van. His father notes this ironically, but he seems heartbroken at Rowan's refusal to ride. After all, this book was called The Horse Boy. But I couldn't help but remember that Rowan had not necessarily had a natural rapport with all horses, just Betsy and her herd. Maybe this horse just wasn't one that Rowan felt a connection with, or he was just plain tired and wanted to ride. Whatever the case, I didn't particularly see it as a devastating blow.

But Isaacson admits that he makes a mistake, and forces Rowan to ride Blackie with him. The chapter ends with Rowan screaming "help me, help me!" and "retreating" due to his nervous system being overloaded with stimuli. Having experienced similar blackouts before, I was extremely pained to read this, it was down right triggering for me, and I had to pause to put the book down for a few moments and gather my bearings.

When I started up again, Isaacson was miserable and angry at himself for what he did to Rowan, angry that he hadn't considered all the possibilities and accommodations, and wondering if Rowan had been stripped of his connection with horses by this trauma.

Fortunately though, Rowan bonds with a horse named Blue, and they eventually make it to the Reindeer people without much incident, save some food poisoning, a few tantrums from Rowan, and numerous "Code Browns" (Rowan is incontinent, this is parent code for a wash-up and fresh change of pants) The shaman they were seeking, a man by the name of Ghoste, assures them that Rowan will be a shaman one day, unless they do anything to disrupt it. After a ritual and the sacrifice and consumption of a special reindeer, they head out to return to Ulan Bator, and by all accounts, Rowan begins to show decided improvement. His speech increases drastically, he expands his imagination, and, much to his parents' relief, Code Browns become a thing of the past. Everyone is joyous as Rowan learns to use the toilet, begins to tell stories, and seems to lose his neurological overloads.

Upon their return to Texas, after a meeting with Simon Baron Cohen (Many bloggers better than I have covered why Baron Cohen is problematic as a speaker about autism) the family begins to notice Rowan's improvements are not hiccups or confined only to Mongolia. He seems happier, less miserable, and less prone to tempestuous changes in his body due to sensory overload. He makes friends, rides horses, and continues to progress. I define "progress" here as this: Rowan is happier. He is more aware of his surroundings, yet less likely to be hurt by them through a sensory overload.

When Rowan benefits, his family benefits. His parents experience more freedom now that their son is happier and less attached to them. During one of these outings, Rupert Isaacson mused on Rowan's progress:

Rowan is still autistic- his essence, his many talents, are all tied up with it. He has been healed of the terrible dysfunctions that afflicted him- this physical and emotional incontinence, his neurological firestorms, his anxiety and hyperactivity. But he has not been cured. Nor would I want him to be. To "cure" him, in terms of trying to tear the autism out, now seems to be completely wrong. Why can't he exist in both worlds, with a foot in both, as many neurotypical people do? Think of immigrants in the United States, living with one foot in their home language and culture, the other in the West, walking in two worlds. It is a rich place to be. Can Rowan keep learning the skills necessary to swim in our world while retaining the magic of his own? It seems a tangible dream.

I am not ashamed to admit that when I read that, I started crying.

The book ends a few pages after, talking about a new charity that Isaacson set up to combine equine therapy with autism therapy, and that the proceeds from this book would benefit scholarships for families of children with autism who could not otherwise afford this luxury/necessity.

The epilogue from a year and a half later came, detailing Rowan's continued progress and the success of the equine therapy school. With it were acknowledgements and thank you's, sources (one of which was Autism Speaks, ugh) and reading group guide questions. The very last question:

17. In what ways might autism be considered a gift?

It couldn't have possibly ended in a better way.

Conclusion

I went through a lot of emotions when reading this book. I took a different approach to both reading and reviewing it than I did Unstrange Minds or Autism's False Prophets, because while the former two were written by doctors in medicine or anthropology, and Unstrange Minds took a few steps away from Grinker's daughter Isabel, this was completely about Rowan and his family, personal and up close. I knew I would have to take a different attitude besides my de facto analytical approach, and take it all with a little grain of salt. And if you document my shifting opinions throughout the review, you'll notice I went through quite the emotional roller coaster: Anger, confusion, sadness, happiness, relief, apprehension.... It was interesting.

I also knew when I started this project of new age perspectives on autism that I would frequently be challenged by assertions that would upset me as a skeptic and a science advocate. Such is the case in this book, being angered by giving Rowan homeopathic solvents, chelation elements, and Isaacson's uncritical assertion that scientists believed that autism was caused by environmental factors. In fact, a genetic view is much more common, and the main proponent of the environmental theory (I hesitate to even dub it that) is quacks at Age of Autism. The promotion for Autism Speaks though, made me angriest. To have it come at the end of the book made all of Isaacson's beautiful words about curing being an absurd idea to ring hollow to a degree. I'm guessing he's not familiar with Autism Speaks' motives and philosophy, but it was still a bad move in my book.

However, in spite of it all, I really enjoyed this book, and I was overjoyed by the message of embracing autism. I know not all parents can journey to Mongolia, and so this works better as a travel memoir or an anthropological study of shamanistic rituals in Mongolia than it does as a book about how to resolve your own child or your own neurological tempests and troubles. But the fact that it was such a popular book (and film) testifies to the power of these types of stories to educate. Knowing that thousands, if not millions, of people read that passage above about how curing is a fool's errand and were asked to consider autism's gifts made me feel hope like never before.

As I continue to delve into the world of new age thought and autism, I wonder if I will discover more examples of this, of autism being seen as something more, something special. Not just a series of sturm & drang in need of desperate curing.

In the meantime, pick up the Horse Boy for yourself if you desire. The profits towards the book go into this cause.

Dateline NBC's Interview with Dr. Wakefield: Live blogging

I am at the moment watching Dateline NBC's interview with Andrew Wakefield.

My impressions so far in the first five minutes: So far, they've interviewed Wakefield, and done sound bites with two parents of children with autism. What's missing so far? How about an interview with, gee, I don't know, someone who is AUTISTIC?

The story thus far has also supported Wakefield's rhetoric that autism "steals" children, offering no rebuttal to such disgusting dehumanizing rhetoric. They just stupidly swallow it.

They're also framing Wakefield's study as under covering a "great discovery". Not good. Not good.

Now they've finally gotten onto the fact that Wakefield was working as a paid researcher against MMR, and stood to profit immensely if MMR was discredited.

3 quarters of a million US dollars. Totally doing it out of the goodness of his heart, right?

They are also exposing the patent application that Wakefield filed for a "safer" vaccine than MMR, which would have also lined his pockets handsomely if his findings discredited MMR.

They are showing a clip now of Wakefield joking about hurting the children at his son's birthday party by collecting blood samples from them. One of them cried in his mother's arms, two others threw up. The people at the conference in the clip laughed. Stay classy, Wakefield.

The formal retraction is next, and the journalist being interviewed is from Channel 4 news in the UK. I've forgotten his name, I think it's Deere. He's doing a great job at exposing Wakefield for the charlatan he is, and even provided a video clip from his news station at Wakefield rudely pushing away a camera from channel 4 at an anti-vax conference where, according to the journalist, he was surrounded by "adoring mothers".

So far, the story is coming together nicely in terms of discrediting Wakefield's research and showing that he was a fraud more interested in his own financial well being than the health and safety of his subjects or the truth that would come out if he conducted his research properly.

The narrator called autism "devastating." Thus revealing once again what is missing from this story. A respect for neurodiversity and an understanding that the only tragedy about autism is the bigotry of neurotypicals in refusing to love and accept autistic people just as they are, rather than imagining them as being "whole beings" under the "broken" child with autism on the outside.

The interviewer is asking pretty softball questions. Not a single curveball yet. I was hoping for a more tough line of questioning.

The Lancet editor admits that if they knew that Wakefield was involved in an upcoming lawsuit, then they would never have published Wakefield's garbage.

Wakefield is defending taking the blood samples at his son's birthday party because he gave them 5 pounds, and saying he needed samples from "normal children".

With no due respect Mr. Wakefield, I am normal, thank you. It's your unethical, dastardly, dishonest. manipulative tactics that are abnormal.

The next part of the story involves Wakefield's devoted followers. First, there is a summary of all the studies which have shown Wakefield's study to be bull, including a Finnish one which had a sample study of over a million children!

They're now talking about McCarthy. Now they have an interview with Paul Offit. Yay! Read his book, Autism's False Prophets. He does a good job dissecting the myth.

The FBI required Offit to have a bodyguard because of the death threats he received. I knew this already, but it's good they mentioned it. It shows just how out of touch with reality and dangerous anti-vaccine activists are.

Some common sense advice for parents from Paul Offit:

".... put your child in the safest position possible."

Absolutely. I am a little interested in the fact that the interview with Offit involved almost no talks about Wakefield, but was directed towards Offit's research and his own book. I'm glad that they decided to give a doctor who still has his medical license and has a strong position in favour of vaccines his own chance to promote his book and his ideas on vaccines and parenting, I feel the interview could have been better spent if a sliver more of time had been devoted to Wakefield's fraudulence.

They're covering Wakefield's time at Thoughtful House in Texas. Once again, the only sign of people with autism we are getting in this program are brief snippets of white, well-fed, male upperclass children stimming. That's it.

Here we go! One child from Minnesota. They're emphasizing the pity based model of looking at autism, saying he still wears a diaper. They are giving him a colon scope... I am screaming inside at the idea of unnecessary surgery being performed on an eleven year old nonverbal boy who cannot consent... And talking about it on national TV!

The indignity and disregard for Thomas' privacy is making me cry.

"Bring their son back from autism." "Parents have to find the next thing on their list." are being uttered. This is disgusting. They are doing nothing to refute the idea that autism is a disease or a tragedy.

The only real tragedy here is this absolutely mediocre news coverage. They have made no revelations thus far, and have not even attempted to introduce ideas regarding neurodiversity, and have not yet interviewed a SINGLE autistic person. They could have gotten Ari Ne'eman for this interview. Or someone from the Autism Self Advocacy Network. Anybody? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

"Rob them of their ability to communicate" was just introduced as a symptom of autism by the narrator. Hooray. Because there's only one type of communication that exists, right?

What I find interesting is that all the parents pictured as being supporters of Wakefield are all white, all seemingly middle class. Autism knows no racial nor socio-economic boundaries, but this reinforces the stereotype that autism is a condition affecting mainly the children of the rich and white.

Also interesting is the choice of language, "...autism affects more than 1 in 110 American children." Wrong. It affects more than 1 in 110 children. It affects more than 1 in 110 people. Autistic children grow up to be autistic adults. We do not just magically vanish into obscurity once our 18th birthday rolls around. This has to stop being framed as only an issue of children. Autism is not new, there have been autistic people for aeons before Wakefield was born.

The story is finished now. They did just as I expected: A watered down, piss poor job with dull questions that one could find in a 5 minute google search or asking their doctor. No new reveals, no attempt to dissuade the stereotype of autism as a monstrosity. But they at least showed Wakefield as a fraud and gave recommendations from the Paediatrics Society and urged new parents to vaccinate, subtly mentioning that the nonexistent chance of autism developing was nothing compared to the thought of having to buy a baby coffin.

But the attitude of the mainstream media towards autism in general continues to irritate me and make me realize we now, more than ever, need to get autistic people into prominent positions in the public psyche and media. Because neurotypical news organizations are not going to give us a fair portrayal, especially if we are adults.