And yet again I am twisted. Thank you for noticing

"Kim Wombles is a particularly twisted individual. I certainly hope she is not an assistant teacher to kids with autism. She would be just the kind of weirdo that some district would assign to a child and she would then try to brainwash the ignorant parent into thinking autism was just beautiful," so said anonymous at Best's orgy of hate.

Yes, I am particularly twisted.

Instead of getting upset when anonymous commenters, AoA attack people, or people on Huff say tacky things about me, I tend to either not care or laugh, rub my hands with glee and get busy with rebuttals. But I don't get my feelings hurt.

I can take constructive criticism, reasoned debated, being told I'm wrong and why. I'm good with that and happy to have that. Those of you who have read me for awhile know I thrive on good exchanges. It doesn't even have to be logical; I had some of my best fun with some really illogical, unhappy people at Huff. They talked to me, and I talked back. It was good because it was interesting. I was disappointed when one of them had to go too far in his offensiveness and refuse to back off of it. I'd still be talking to him now if he would have owned that.

The "people" commenting anonymously over at the latest name-calling miserable retch's blog obviously aren't interested in an exchange of ideas, but in tearing down others to make themselves feel better. That's fine. It makes it obvious that they are miserable people not worth the personal response.

It's okay to call names when names are deserved and reasons follow to explain the name-calling; I've done that and I'll do it again. And not feel a bit sorry for it. My blog is unmoderated because I feel it important to follow my convictions. Censorship of ideas is not okay. So, if you want to come on here and offer reasons as to why I deserve invective, then you are free to do so. But you own your words. Otherwise, anonymous merely allows you the temporary borrowing of someone else's balls for the occassion.

Now, in case it's not clear from my lengthy and numerous posts on autism:

I am the mother of three on the spectrum.

I consider my children to be beautiful, interesting, fascinating individuals in their own rights. I love them and consider them to be my joys. I would lay down my life for them. They do not need to be cured. I celebrate who they are. As a good parent does, I help them with skills they need to develop, but I love them regardless of their ability to make eye contact, to sit still, to go with the flow, to write, to become independent. I love them completely and unconditionally.

It has not been easy to raise these wonderfully challenging little people and I do not pretend it has. I do not minimize the challenges, nor the pain involved in knowing a child will not have the life you'd hoped for.

I think bitterness, rage, and the ugliness too often displayed by the mercury brigade are choices each individual makes every single day and every single moment of their lives.

It's their problem. The shame of it is that this spills over onto their children, their families, their communities, and innocent bystanders.

And so, I'll point it out where I see it. I'll note it for the record.

And I'll be proud that some folks in that bitterly raging ugliness don't like what I'm doing.

If they lack the courage of their convictions to engage in dialogue with me, then I'll file them appropriately.

I have met some incredible people through blogging and am enriched by the experience. And humbled to know that I am not alone, not the only one willing to stand up against woo, against hate, against discrimination and ugliness against members of the autism community.

So I might not say to parents autism is beautiful, but I'd absolutely say their child is beautiful, valuable, and loved.


Mom26children said...

You have hit the nail on the head...the Anonymous naysayers do not know how to have a spirited debate..they must stoop to the only level they know.
Keep you beautiful head up high...you are my role model and I am listening.

lurker said...

There is too much condemnation of bitterness, hate, etc., because those feelings are very fitting for the awful situations and towards those who choose to undermine efforts to make things better.

KWombles said...


Okay, I'll bite, who's undermining efforts to make things better? Not me, not the merry band of woo fighters.

We simply refuse to let pass as acceptable the kind of statements made by parents who write about their children in this way.

It's not okay. And I won't pretend that it is. How many people over there said, I'm sorry you are feeling that way, but took the time to point out her ut that good chunks of it were offensive, and if she really felt that way she needed to get some help?

No, I'm sorry, it isn't fitting ever to think that you wish your child were dead, had cancer, or that parents of children who have cancer or who have died are better off than you. If you think this way, you need help. And if you don't think that's a cry for help, I'd like to see your explanation of how it is acceptable.

lurker said...

I think you are kind of undermining such efforts, and those you ally yourself with are especially undermining such efforts. I'd like to know all the things that the "woo" fighters are against. Just because it's not acceptable to say things about wishing their child was dead or things about cancer, doesn't make it ok to condemn the vitriol that many involved in the issue have and are justified in having.

Foresam said...

Did you conceive those kids at the sperm bank or did you troll bars at closing time to find guys who were blind drunk?

KWombles said...

I'll point out, once again, that a man who finds the need to insult every woman he comes across on the internet is a misogynist. And undoubtedly unable to connect closely with anyone in the real world. I'd recommend said individual get some help. And choose to stay off my blogs unless he would like his blog and his responses to be used as teaching tools.

If a person comes here to insult and attack rather than address the argument and debate, then I'm going to infer said person has no reasoned argument against my contentions and I win the debate.

Plus, said person looks like a complete ass, especially in light of what my post says. So, all in all, I'm feeling pretty good.

KWombles said...


I don't know who you think I have allied myself with, nor why you think advocating acceptance, assistance, and support for adults on the spectrum and for parents of children on the spectrum is such a bad thing. Obviously, you have not read my blog and have decided to be swayed by information that is inaccurate and unrepresentative of my positions.

And quite frankly, I obviously disagree with you on condemning vitriol. Anger left to fester turns to bitterness and eats the soul, and everyone around the person. It serves no purpose. Anger that moves one to enlightened action is entirely different.

If you wonder what woo fighters I align myself with, I suggest you look at Raising Autism, Countering AoA facebook group, and Science Rocks.
If you disagree with my positions, that's fine and your right. Just as it's my right to express my opinions and offer reasoned debate on my blogs.

Foresam said...

I prefer to only insult fat, ugly stupid women. That's why I chose you. You qualify on all three counts.
Feel free to use my blog to educate the rest of the imbeciles from Neuroinsanity. If you study hard, you'll only be fat and ugly.

KWombles said...

Comment Guidelines
Note: you post it, it's going on the site. I've required registered users because I don't buy into allowing anonymity in this kind of situation. You want to say it, you can own it. But my promise is it'll get on. You get five nasty chances; then those posts that meet the nasty criteria will be deleted. Reasonable responses by you will still be allowed. Be forewarned, if you choose to attack, you can expect that I will dissect your posts and use your posts as teaching tools in my college courses where appropriate.

Ready to play? Let's have a dialogue. A dialogue that AoA will not allow.

lurker said...

I'm convinced you're allied with the others who spew the same rhetoric you do, and with the non-disabled aspies who are so inclined to glorifying themselves. I'm disgusted at acceptance for the highly unfortunate reality of any form of mental disability. I detest the lack of status and dependence it engenders. Assistance and support are nowhere near enough and nobody wants to depend on that without end. I've read some of the things you wrote. All that corny sappy talk about acceptance and love and coping, isn't going to do squat and isn't an excuse to be against the goal of strong therapies/cures. And I never meant for anger not to lead to action. I want it to motivate action.

Nobody on the spectrum deep down wants to be an obedient, subserviently benign, non-complainer, to their non-mentally disabled carers, just because they have loving families who care for them. I'd loathe for you to fool others into neglecting to realize that there are many other things that those who lack a lot of functioning capability will miss out on due to their impairments. You can't try to demoralize others away from efforts toward expectations and still say you're ok with improvement in functioning.

KWombles said...


Since I'm not the one spewing vitriol, I fail to see your point. I have not advocated treatment. I simply stand against untested treatments with the potential to cause more harm than good.

I'm convinced your closeminded and have not in fact read my posts. You came over here with your bias set in place. That would be your problem. I may not want a cure, not the way the mercury brigade screams for it, since I don't believe based on the available scientific evidence at hand, but I do want all possible support (what do you think treatment and therapy is?)for children with autism and for adults on the spectrum.

You misread me and misunderstand me and you place words and ideas in my mouth that have not been there. Shame on you. Your last paragraph is complete and utter nonsense and has nothing to do with anything I have ever written. Why not try to put aside your biases and examine our support sites and argue what I've actually written rather than making it up?

Foresam said...

How come you attack AOA? Don't you know that they supported the high priestess of Neuroinsanity? They're on your team. They even supported Amanda Baggs.

kathleen said...

Crap! how dare you speak of acceptance and love! Why that obviously means that you just want to sit home and just hug your kids and hope for the best..I have read all of your posts..lets see, you are against quackery, and pro proven therapies and treatments. damn you!
Didn't you once write about how important getting your children the help they need is?
That you weren't looking for a cure, and that your time was better spent insuring that your children got all the treatment and therapy a.k.a. support that they needed? Crazy stuff...

lurker said...

You haven't advocated treatment, but you're saying treatment is a type of support? Why won't you express what you mean explicitly? There won't be a cure if research isn't done, including into some of the things the "mercury brigade" say have to do with autism. I doubt that you don't know that current therapies won't do anywhere near enough for all on the spectrum. I wonder what research into cures/therapies you would condone. I've read the things you wrote, and I know what the meanings are. I'm not that gullible. Don't try to back away from the attitudes you use. I've seen this rhetoric before and you can't refute what it amounts to. I won't ignore the implications of it.

kathleen said...

Btw-I fear some won't understand sarcasm..beware of sock puppets! :)

KWombles said...

Lurker, that was a typo on my part and would have been clear to anyone who has read me. I have not not advocated treatment as you were suggesting (missed the double negative when I typed it).

I believe in OT, PT, speech, sensory integration, play therapy, ABA/cognitive behavioral therapy and other evidence based therapies, although my children have not used all of them.

I support parents who choose to use medications to treat symptoms (having been there and done that; it at least has decades of clinical evidence behind it as well as some double-blind studies-- I would not choose it at this time with my children and their particular behaviors), vitamin suppliments (but not megadoses), and specialized diets for children with additional food allergies.

Since I do not believe that autism is heavy metal toxicity, I do not condone chelation. I do not condone lupron. I do not condone HBOT.

I don't back away from a damn thing I write, nor my attitudes, and I write it fairly clearly. This is something you'd know if you'd really spent anytime here. It is possible to have empathy for and with people you vehemently disagree with. Doesn't mean I have it for everyone I disagree with, and I'll own that, as well.

What precisely does "I've seen this rhetoric before and you can't refute what it amounts to. I won't ignore the implications of it" mean?

Reaching out to adults on the spectrum, to other parents, whatever their beliefs on the cause of autism is the right thing to do. Calling folks on their BS is also the right thing to do. Ideally it can be done tactfully and some consensus or at least an agreement to disagree can be reached. And we can all still gather and sing kumbaya.

Not wanting a cure, at least not in the way you mean, since it appears where your beliefs lie, doesn't mean I don't want my children and other children with autism to receive every effort to help them achieve independence and satisfying, fulfulling lives.

It means that I acknowledge that autism is a neurological condition, not vaccine injury, that is primarily genetic and set by birth (and in many cases caused by in utero trauma)and that the effects of autism in and on the brain are systemic.

So, no, I won't trade a cure for who my children are. We are our neural network. I'll bust my ass to give them the tools they need to do well in this world while working to make this world a safer, softer place for them. I don't particularly care if that means I get lumped into some fictional movement that exists only in the minds of some truly angry and emotionally disturbed individuals. I've said what I stand for, and I've been consistent, minus the one above typo.

That doesn't mean I have the same ideological stance as everyone I talk to and choose to publicly admit to reading and following. After all, I apparently spend a great deal of time reading AoA.

And this particular blog would never have existed if they would have engaged in dialogue. They choose to moderate heavily, in essence, censoring. Anyone is welcome here at this blog and posts without moderation. So you tell me who's more inclusive? Who's willing to engage in discourse?

You continue to make mistakes concerning my positions. Your right, certainly, to do. But inaccurate. And yet, you are still welcome here, and welcome you would be at Countering and Raising Autism.

More than you can say for AoA and isn't that a crying shame?

lurker said...

I meant I have elsewhere from other anti-cure individuals, seen all of that emotional rhetoric about acceptance and love and coping that you have used. I won't ignore the issues of lack of success and status that that rhetoric doesn't address. I won't ignore the implications of lack of cure that that rhetoric doesn't deal with. I don't like how that corny talk tries to weaken ambitions for equality.

What do you think I mean by cure? There is no trade of cure for who one's children are. Nobody proposed that. Nothing can prepare one to do well, achieve independence, and succeed, as well as cure can, even though existing therapies can help. I'm not much of a fan of AOA anyway due to their lack of focus and diversions.

KWombles said...


I suppose then that you are going to have to be explicit on what you believe autism to be and what that cure would entail.

And what you mean by equality.

I would respectfully disagree with you on the trade of a cure for who one's children are. If you've read my posts, that is precisely what many commenters and article writers at AoA are in fact advocating.

I disagree; a "cure" is not necessary for ALL to do well, achieve independence and succeed. And when we discuss the most severely impaired individuals with autism what is standing in the way of independence is mental retardation and other co-morbid diseases/disorders.

We each define differently and subjectively our ideas of whar doing well means, what achieving independence means, and what success means, and whether we are neurotypical or not, we each of us achieve differing levels of each of these concepts.

So, I'll advocate therapies to help individuals, I'm all for bucketloads of research into effective treatments, into genetics research (because I do not believe it will lead to the "cure" many think it will: a genetic in utero test leading to the selective abortion of fetuses with a risk of ASDs), even into additional research concerning vaccines, mercury and other environmental factors affecting fetuses specifically.

You say you are not "much of a fan of AOA anyway due to their lack of focus and diversions." That would seem to imply that you do buy into their theories regarding autism, what it is, and what they believe causes it.

Foresam said...

You agree with David Kirby by not condoning chelation and other things that cure children by addressing the fact that mercury is the cause of autism. Kirby doen't believe that mercury causes autism either. He's just a more sophisticated disinformation type than you are.

You use the stupidity of opposing chelation because you just don't believe the truth while Kirby tells us that mercury as the cause might be true. Two different types of child abusing propaganda, his is willful while yours is based on illogical conclusions.

KWombles said...


I appreciate that the last two comments you've posted have been civil. It's a shame you felt the need to go on a rant both here and at your site and be as ugly and as inaccurate as you have been and allow that kind of ugliness and inaccuracy in your comment sections. So you should understand when I tell you that short of a retraction and an apology, this is the only time I'm going to respond directly to your comments, no matter how civil.

(1) I am not certain what purpose your generally nasty comments across the web serve.

(2), I am not certain why you have such hatred towards anyone who goes about living their lives and exercising their first amendment rights as you do.

(3) I don't get the neuroinsanity nonsense or what purpose creating strawman arguments serves. Rebut what actual individuals actually say. And do it civilly.

(4) I am not quite clear how or why I topped your list for your rant. Nor why you decided I belonged to the mythical neuroinsanity movement you've created. Acceptance of individuals and working to make the world a kinder place where they are not subject to bullying (gosh, John, isn't that what you do by saying such vile things?) doesn't sound like insanity.

(5) I'm pretty sure that Kirby and I agree on absolutely nothing regarding autism. Although I would agree with you that his propaganda is willful and one I beleive is predicated on profit.

(6) I do not believe that autism is heavy metal toxicity and as such chelation won't cure it. Heavy metal toxicity is heavy metal toxicity and chelation will help that, but may not reverse all damage.

(7) For me to advocate chelation for children who have not been diagnosed with heavy metal toxicity by a reputable doctor, a 24 hour urine collection with no chelation prior to collection, and reputable independently confirming the diagnosis of heavy metal toxicity, would be child abuse.

(8) I can assure you that my children's autism is not the result of heavy metal toxicity nor adverse reactions to vaccines. It would be child abuse to subject them to a treatment for which there is no medical justification.

(9) I hope that your vitriol is directed out of pain and that were you to find your way out of that pain, you might be happier as would the people around you. Of course, it's entirely possible you are just a mean person who like to tear other people down to make yourself feel better. You've proven here, though, that you can actually converse without resorting to that behavior. I think you should try leaving the hate aside and actually try to have a dialogue with people. it might actually feel better than calling people ugly names.

John, I'd be happy to discuss things with you further, but I'll stand on my introductory paragraph. Short of an apology and some retraction of that nastiness over there, this is the only time I will directly respond to your comments. You're welcome to leave them here, as long as you remember the rule of 5.

lurker said...

I wouldn't know a great way to define autism considering the many ways it has been talked about, but I would consider it to be a condition in which a small subset lack basically no basic skills and even have lots of intellectual abilities, and in which a much larger subset lacks many basic skills and sometimes lacks intellectual strength.

I mean equality in how much mental capability to learn and in amount of ability. I consider cure to be any therapy or set of therapies that would practically completely remove impairments in any and all basic abilities. I only thought cure to be necessary for those who lack capability. I think with enough effort and resources, cure will become possible eventually.

I'm glad you are in favor of lots of research. I don't like that AOA talks about vaccines themselves as being causative, which I think isn't true and to be a diversion from the mercury theories of causation. I wish they would focus on mercury from vaccines and other sources, which I think is somewhat causative in some cases. I wish they would look for extra research into how heavy metals could have been involved, and into effectiveness of different designs of biomed, to strengthen their theories on those things.

Foresam said...

Your requirement of wanting an unprovoked urine sample shows me you obtained that "knowledge" from some place other than a reputble source. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your assertion is not disingenuous.

Urine samples are largely useless in gaining information about toxicity. The reason for that is that the toxic material is trapped in certain organs. While some varying level may be present throughout the body and may present itself in urine, stool or blood, the key to finding out if toxicity is probelematic or not can optimally be learned via hair tests for deranged mineral transport.

The people who run AOA do not discuss thia because, like Neuroinsanity, they do not present the whole truth about how virtually all autism is mercury poisoning that is aggravated by aluminum and testosterone.

Cutler, Deth, Haley, Geier, Holmes and Verstraeten gave us all the proof we needed for this by 2003.

Neuroinsanity began their disinformation campaign to pervert this knowledge in 2004 and were joined by Kirby and other more insidious disinformation agents in 2005. So, most of the junk that has been the subject of this battle between cure and anti-cure has been an out and out sham.

Since I had this knowledge before all the disinformation started, and watched autistic children become normal by removing mercury, and know countless parents who also had great success with this, I can't be fooled by any of the less than accurate rhetoric from either side. It used to make me angry.

Now, I find it more useful to laugh at the people who are perpetrating this idiocy and make fun of them.

Perhaps there are a few decent human beings who have fallen for the Neuroinsane propaganda and truly believe that what they write is benevolent. The founders of Neuroinsanity like Frank Klein, K Leitch, K Seidel, Diva and Stephen Barret and Orac are fully aware that every word they have written was penned with nefarious intent...and so am I.

I'm not concerned with determining your intent. Only you can know what is in your own heart and soul.

My assault on Neuroinsanity's females is not personal but is just another "shot" at the Neuroinsanity movement as a whole. If at some point you come to your senses and accept the truth from those of us who cure horribly disabled children, I may feel obliged to apologize to you for the way I have gone about raising your consciousness.

On the other hand, if you persist in promoting this blatantly and knowingly untrue agenda that you seem to believe, you will remain an enemy to my child and every other autistic child and you will richly deserve whatever abuse I choose to give you. In the process, I hope to demonstrate the insanity of the philosophy you have embraced with laughter at your expense.

While abusing children through generating bogus rhetoric is not comical, the stupidity of those who do so unwittingly is best mocked to help the unwitting gain wisdom.

I hope this furthers understanding, Kim.