1/18/2010

Facebook Fun with AoAers who are Really Ticked Off at the Tribune's Article

First, you absolutely have to read the Trib piece if you haven't. Then you must read Stork Dok's beyond excellent post on why DAN! docs are not autism experts.
Okay, ready? I had no idea that you could have such animated conversations on facebook! I mean, I'm so used to AoA refusing to post anything of mine, I don't even try, and Huff moderates so tightly that it's hard to get things on. So, it's been awhile since I got to match wits with the other side, you know? And you know there's an other side. Should there be? No. There shouldn't. But there is. And the other side really hates it when their woo is challenged. I mean, they get pissy. And I get pugilistic. I admit it. It comes as no surprise, though, right? You've read me. Why would it be surprising that I am as likely to say in person, computer keyboard to computer keyboard, what I write here?

I've said it before, I really don't care what you blame your child's autism on if what you're interested in is moving forward and helping them, helping make the world a better place for them. Does that mean that we can get along and even be friendly and supportive if you think vaccines caused your child's autism? Yeah, actually it does. If your focus isn't on bringing down vaccines and you aren't way off in wooville, we can agree to disagree and focus on the here and now and making things better. We're good. We're cool.  Think of it like religion and politics. We don't have to agree; we just have to agree not to call the other a jackass for the other's cockamamie beliefs. See?

So, you, a believer that vaccines caused autism, could read a great deal of countering and not get pissed and about 15% and get irritated with me or just shake your head and go, "Oh, that's Kim for you" while I looked at your 14 studies website that you think is awesome and think, "Oh, that's you!" We shake our heads, chuckle at the other's foolheadedness and get back to shit that matters. See, exactly like a lukewarm atheist and a semi-devout Christian would.

It doesn't work that way, though, when you've got a hard-core (think Maher) atheist and a fundamentalist (think Maher) anti-vaxer, though, does it? No wait, mixed up my analogy just to try and get Bill Maher in both spots. Folks who are heavily science-based just aren't going to get along very well with the folks who continue silly shit like thinking there's insecticide, antifreeze, blah, blah, blah in vaccines and that these things are responsible for stealing your real child away, forcing you to use things like nicotine patches, pot, IVIG, chelation, HBOT, Cutler, Yasko or Kane protocols, lupron, or OSR, or any of the other wackaloon stuff like MB12 pops and Valtrex, cuz if it ain't mercury poisoning then it's gotta be herpes. It isn't going to work. It just isn't. If you're putting your child through all of that on the word of a guy who spent a weekend becoming a DAN! expert, or worse, experimenting on your child after reading this junk on a yahoo support site, well, I'm not going to think your lid's screwed on tight is what I'm trying to tell you. I know, it's just so BLUNT, isn't it?

Ah well, and I know, my title "fun" suggests I'm making light of the terrible burdens these poor parents are dealing with. It's so insensitive of me. It really is. If I only knew. You know what I've noticed? The anti-vax parents are not at all supportive of you if you don't buy into their woo. You don't exist, except as a sheeple. And, boy, they get nasty fast.

Okay, I know you're asking yourselves, if she's been blunt here, what did she say when she had the chance to talk to real live folks who are always posting at AoA?

The very first thing I said on the open thread at John's was:

Stork Dok, excellent comments.
Benson, just a note, it kind of loses any sort of legitimacy as a compliment when you immediately push biomed after bowing to another's experiences (boy and if she has your respect with 2 on the spectrum, what do I have, with 3, or the other parents with 4 or more on the spectrum who don't go down the woo-hole?).

Your tendency to ignore the studies showing no connection between autism and vaccines is also noted.

Nancy, what does insulin and diabetes have to do with parents choosing to try unproven, untested therapies concocted up in people's basements and at their kitchen sinks? Where did Zoey engage in convenient fictions? I've read enough posts and comments by the devoted AoAers to have a clear idea of where the convenient fictions are at, and I've deconstructed some of them. And Thelma and Louise have, as well.
That wasn't bad, right? I mean, for me, it was tame, especially compared to what I posted over at the Trib where I wrote: "So to all the other things we can ascribe to those parents who believe vaccines are responsible for their child's autism and go down the woo-hole of insanity to recover their children, we can add messiah-like complexes to their martyrdom. Cool beans, bensmyson. Good to know."


It was downright nice, I think. Maybe they read the Trib post, though, because they sure did react all out of proportion.

Nancy, who just loves AoA, accused me of being inclined to "instead concoct fictions about "kitchen sinks" to glean some warped emotional payoff from online posturing."


Gosh, so I responded, still nice, mind you: "Kitchen sink: Haley. Basement: Geiers. Fictions, I do better when I concoct fictions. Posturing seems to be your forte, Nancy."

I didn't say she was warped as she was suggesting I was. Right? Well, that just got them started. Linderman got involved, called Stork Dok a Storc dork and everyone else liars and sheeples. Lovely chap. Have ya'll had the pleasure of reading him? Thelma and Louise are gonna introduce you to him in a day or so; they promise.

Some lady I hadn't had the pleasure to meet before said my forte was: "Rudeness, negativity, and defamation of character? Obviously you don't do better when you concoct fictions."

Now, she hadn't read my fiction, so I don't think that's kind. I also don't think she understands what those words she used means, either. Nope, I don't. Not at all.


Nancy came back in, like she was fresh out of grade school (which is completely unfair to shool age children who are way more clever): "That, and "I know you are, so what am I?"

There, that mortally wounded me. Shew. I don't think I can come back with anything more witty.  Oh wait. I can at least offer a wordier response. Bore em to tears, I say.



The new chick who thinks I'm rude and negative also thinks it's totally my fault that Linderman started name-calling. So my response:
 
Yes, of course, it was my two posts that are responsible for Linderman's "storc dork" and "sheeple" and Nancy's "warped emotional payoff from online posturing." Of course it is. And you're right, it is sad when there's nothing but malice left, isn't it? I see an awful lot of malice at AoA. An awful lot. Bitterness, rage, and desperation, as well. It must weigh on you. I've read Linderman's posts at his blog. I've read a lot of Nancy's stuff at Huff, at AoA. Read way more of other loyal AoAers than I ever wanted to. And what strikes me most is that desperation. And you really don't like it when those peddling woo and industrial mining chelators are taken to task for their actions. If you were taken in, if you were fooled, and you did this, you gave your child something that even the company making it can't decide if it's one pure single compound or two natural compounds that appears in human fluids, well, what will you do?

Let me quote the wonderful Stork Dok's article on DAN doctors while you reflect on accurate use of terminology (defamation of character, negativity, rudeness--pretty sure that just because you disagree with someone's assessment it doesn't mean they were rude, although most would agree that sheeple and dork and warped emotional payoff are):
"So, who is the true expert in the medical management of autism? Someone who has taken three years of training in a general residency and an additional 2-3 years of specialized training and has achieved a high level of competence that is demonstrated by board certifications, or someone who has taken a three year general residency with a weekend course that is not eligible for board certification because there isn't any board to certify them for autism medical treatment?"
If you really feel that the clinicians who go through the weekend course and then treat your autistic child with "supplements" like Haley's, which was tested on 10 people, has no evidence of efficacy for autism let alone any other condition, or any of the other ill-advised treatments which are dangerous and either shown to be ineffective or not tested at all, are more qualified than board certified developmental pediatricians, pediatric neurologists or child psychiatrists, then you're not engaging your critical thinking skills. You're not. You're letting your fear, your worry, your need for concrete answers and clear courses of action,as well as your desperation to make things okay get the better of you.
And that's where it stands at 12:15 tonight.

Ya'll think I was rude? Or true to my coloring? Remember, I can't help it; I'm just drawn that way.

3 comments:

Clay said...

Um, I think it's your fault if these people have to get drunk after reading you - to forget. :-)

kathleen said...

I always look at the verbage..recover? from what..loved your yard stick refrence btw. This is someone who makes a lot of claims-yet backs none of them up. Lets look at the history of anecdotal evidence..witchcraft trials, spontaneous generation, chicken little..Hey, I've never done biomed, yet my children thrive..I guess it all boils down as to how one looks at autism. Some people get a diagnosis and believe that it is the end...and others believe that it's the start..

storkdok said...

Hehehe!

Guess they don't get when someone puts something in parentheses, it means that it is a questionable term.