Showing posts with label Applied Behavior Analysis. Show all posts

Conor Debunks TWO Autism Myths Eh!

Yesterday was Canada Day and Conor sported his Team Canada shirt to celebrate.  He also debunked not one but TWO autism myths.  Conor has received ABA based intervention at school for 8 years.  Yet, contrary to the myth that ABA causes discomfort and harm to persons with autism disorders,  Conor shows his terrific smiles again ( see also side bar on this blog) debunking that nonsense yet again.  He also debunks the myth that people with autism disorders do not like hugs and his Mom was very happy to assist in the demonstration!




Posted in , , , , , |

ASfAR Early Autism Intervention Review: ABA Only Autism Intervention to Receive Highest Rating of E: Established Based on Evidence


The Australasian Society for Autism Research has just released "A Review of the Research to Identify the Most Effective Models of Practice in Early Intervention for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders" which assesses the research evidence in support of the various early autism interventions and rates the interventions according to the level of evidence base in support of each intervention.  As with every other major research review of the effectiveness of early autism interventions only ABA, applied behavior analysis, received the highest rating:


All credible reviews of autism interventions from the US Surgeon General to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Management of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (2007, confirmed 2010) have rated ABA highest of all early interventions for autism disorders. Only ABA has consistently, as in this Australiasian review, been placed in the highest category in this case described as "Established based on Evidence".  This review, like all other reviews of the research literature before it, is unlikely to change the minds of the anti-ABA ideologues but it is important as one more tool to support political and legal advocacy aimed at providing education and health benefits for autistic children and adults.  Thank you to Dr. Jon Brock a member of the ASfAR executive committee for highlighting this new research report via Twitter. 

Posted in , , , |

ABA Treatment for Autism: America Leads, Lets Catch Up Canada, Lets Get Moving Again!!



At one time the argument might have been made that Canada led North America in terms of provision of evidence based treatment for autism.  Strong parent advocacy had made gains in encouraging provincial governments in British Columbia, Alberta and New Brunswick to provide Applied Behavior Analysis treatment. Our federal government, however, refused to get involved in any meaningful way and the Harper government played politics with the National Autism Strategy. The pitiful National Autism Symposium was postponed to allow the deck to be stacked with anti-ABA advocates and to weed out ABA advocates including me.  Here in New Brunswick our successful provincial program for early intervention based on the recognized (Eric Larsson, David Celiberti) UNB-CEL Autism Intervention Training program has  been abandoned at both the early intervention and school levels in favor of  in house autism intervention "training". In New Brunswick gains made are being abandoned, in Canada federally they never started.  In the Courts our Supreme Court of Canada, apart from a human rights and statutory analysis,  opined in Auton that ABA was an "emergent" therapy, notwithstanding earlier findings by the US Surgeon General, among other prominent authorities, that ABA effectiveness as an autism treatment was backed by 30 years and hundreds of studies.

Our good neighbors to the south, however, are taking autism disorders more seriously with more states requiring insurance providers to include ABA treatment and a 2012 federal judge ruling ordered that Medicaid cover ABA treatment in Florida.  Now Autism Votes, an Autism Speaks initiative, reports that the US federal government has concluded that ABA is primarily a medical, not just educational, therapy with the result that autistic persons among the 8,000,000 US federal employees will be eligible for ABA treatment under their medical coverage: 

Autism Speaks Hails Landmark Federal Decision Calling Key Autism Therapy a ‘Medical’ Service Eligible for Insurance


NEW YORK, NY -- Autism Speaks hailed today’s announcement by the federal government, the nation’s largest employer, that Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), the most widely used behavioral intervention used to treat autism, is a “medical” therapy that qualifies for health insurance coverage, rather than an “educational” service.

The decision by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) involves health insurance coverage provided to the nation’s eight million federal employees, retirees, and dependents, under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. It could have even more far-reaching implications on the health insurance benefits provided all Americans living with autism, as it will be much harder for insurance companies to continue denying coverage for ABA treatment.
. 
“The OPM decision directly contradicts a long-standing insurance industry claim that ABA therapy is not ‘medical,’ but rather ‘educational’ - provided by the schools at taxpayer expense,” said Peter Bell, Autism Speaks executive vice president for programs and services. “Now, tens of thousands of families will have better access to more affordable, critical ABA treatment.” 

The decision was rendered in the form of guidance to insurers who participate in the FEHB Program for policies that will be renewed or issued starting in 2013. The OPM decision does not require the insurers to cover ABA, but rather allows them to offer the coverage as it does many other medical treatments. The guidance reads: “The OPM Benefit Review Panel recently evaluated the status of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) for children with autism. Previously, ABA was considered to be an educational intervention and not covered under the FEHB Program. The Panel concluded that there is now sufficient evidence to categorize ABA as medical therapy. Accordingly, plans may propose benefit packages which include ABA.”

Autism Speaks has fought to provide families insurance coverage for ABA therapy through state-regulated plans, self-funded group plans that are regulated under federal law, the FEHB Program, and TRICARE for military families. In each instance, opposition to covering ABA treatment has been based in large part on the claim that ABA is educational, rather than medical."

In Canada our provincial government health care providers defined autism intervention as a social service rather than a medical necessity helping it avoid responsibility for autism coverage in the Courts. Canada still has an autism advocacy movement at work trying to right the Canadian autism ship which has floundered on the rocks of indifference.  Medicare for Autism Now! has been fighting hard to encourage our disinterested federal government to take autism seriously, meet with the provinces and get effective ABA treatment covered for autism under all provincial health care legislation.  

Wake up Canada! We are not falling behind in autism treatment we have already fallen way, way behind.  Get behind Medicare for Autism Now! and provide your support, get involved.  When we wave the Canadian flag this July 1st lets remember our autistic children in need of effective ABA treatment. If our American friends can wake up and address the autism crisis that confronts us all surely we Canadians can do so too,  EH?

Posted in , , , , |

US Federal Judge: ABA Proven and Highly Effective Treatment of Children with Autism

It is hard to believe that in 2012 a government agency with responsibilities for the provision or administration of health care could take the position that ABA is an "unproven" treatment for autism.  That was the justification though of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration in refusing to provide Medicaid coverage for ABA treatment for three persons with autism.   As reported  by the Miami Herald US Federal Judge Joan Lenard disagreed and ordered the FAHCA to provide the Medicaid coverage for the applied behavior analysis treatment: "U.S. Judge Joan Lenard ruled Friday that applied behavioral analysis be covered by Medicaid....Lenard held that ABA was a proven and highly effective treatment of children with autism."

Apparently the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration is not familiar with authorities from the US Surgeon General to the American Pediatric Association and  a number of state agencies that have reviewed the scientific literature and found ABA to be the most evidence based effective treatment for autism.  Or perhaps they   accidentally  subscribed to updates from anti-ABA activists Michelle Dawson and Laurent Mottron who have appeared (often) in the media and in Canadian legal and political proceedings in a prolonged and determined effort to prevent Canadian autistic children from receiving ABA treatment for their autism disorders.    Regardless, US Federal Judge Joan Lenard, in addition to issuing an order directing the agency to provide Medicaid coverage for ABA, has also educated the agency on the benefits of ABA treatment for children with autism disorders. 

Posted in , , , , , , |

ABA Benefits for Autism: Association for Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT) Educates LA Times Alan Zarembo


The attached letter was written by ASAT Board member Sabrina Freeman Ph. D., and Secretary Florence DiGennaro Reed, Ph. D., BCBA-D to the LA Times Alan Zarembo who did such a poor job (in my humble opinion) reporting on autism issues in a recent LA Times series.  In the letter Freeman and Reed attempt to educate Zarembo about the scientific, evidence based benefits that ABA has been demonstrated to bring to autistic children.  

I don't know if a superficial mainstream media reporter is capable of  understanding the information presented in the letter or if he would make the effort to understand.  I applaud ASAT for trying to break through Zarembo's self constructed brick wall of ignorance and educate him about the evidence basis behind ABA, an intervention that has helped so many autistic children. 

ASAT Responds to LA Times Story “Families Cling to Hope of Autism Recovery”



Monday, January 30, 2012

Dear Mr. Zarembo:

We are writing to you regarding your article entitled, “Families Cling to Hope of Autism Recovery” (the Los Angeles Times, December 15, 2011). We appreciate your time and effort in highlighting the work of Dr. Lovaas and the larger field of applied behavior analysis. We especially appreciate your advocacy of science as the means to evaluate the effectiveness of any treatment.

While you acknowledge some positive benefits of applied behavior analytic treatment, your emphasis ignores a large body of research indicating that children who receive Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI) benefit significantly relative to those children who do not receive EIBI. We ourselves acknowledge that there are gaps in the science of autism treatment, including EIBI; however, we respectfully disagree with your presentation of the outcomes. We are unaware of other treatment protocols that have been studied and replicated to the same degree as EIBI. Unfortunately, many other treatments are marketed as “cures” without evidence of benefit. As such, EIBI represents best practices for people with autism. While you rely on the AHRQ report in your article, we wish you had also highlighted that treatments based on the principles of applied behavior analysis have been endorsed by the U.S. Surgeon General,1 National Institutes of Health,2 the National Research Council,3 the National Standards Report4 published by the National Autism Center, and others. 5Although we agree that additional research is needed to develop and refine EIBI and other science-based approaches, your article leads readers to conclude that the high cost and burden of a forty hour-a-week requirement to replicate the positive outcomes from the scientific literature is too high a cost for society. We advocate for research funding to identify aspects of treatment that are most important for improving function. Until that time, though, children with autism deserve access to high quality treatments based on our current understanding of science.

The science of applied behavior analysis and its application to autism treatment are often portrayed inaccurately in the media. Unfortunately, we believe your story contributes to further misunderstanding and misconception. The potential risk is that caregivers will delay pursuing empirically-supported, effective treatment. We suggest that rather than advocate denial of effective autism treatment, we should acknowledge the true state of science in autism intervention and advocate for access to effective treatment by families. It is important for parents and caregivers to access accurate information regarding autism treatments so that they may make wise decisions for their children. For more information, please visit http://www.asatonline.org/resources/autismtreatments.htm.


Sabrina Freeman, Ph.D.
Board Member, Association for Science in Autism Treatment


Florence D. DiGennaro Reed, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Secretary, Association for Science in Autism Treatment


References 
1U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Mental health: A report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.
2Strock, M. (2004). Autism spectrum disorders (pervasive developmental disorders). NIH Publication No. NIH-04-5511. National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, 40 pp. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/autism.cfm
3National Research Council (2001). Educating children with autism. Committee on Educational Interventions for Children with Autism, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
4National Autism Center (2009). National Standards Report. Randolph, MA: National Autism Center.
5New York State Department of Health (1999). Clinical practice guideline: Report of the recommendations. Autism/pervasive developmental disorders, assessment and intervention for young children (age 0-3 years). Albany, NY: NYS Early Intervention Program.

Posted in , , , , |

Medicare's Orphans and The Supreme Court of Canada's Failure to Protect Children with Autism Disorders

On November 1, 2011 the film Medicare's Orphans was released by Medicare for Autism NOW! It is an excellent presentation of the history of the fight for medicare coverage of autism treatment in Canada and includes comments about the Supreme Court of Canada's monumental failure, in the Auton decision,  to ensure that Canadian governments provide coverage for treatment for autism disorders, a serious and disabling condition for many who suffer from it.


Medicare's Orphans. from MedicareForAutismNow on Vimeo.

Following is a reprint of a comment I posted on March 28, 2009 which reviewed the Auton decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada turned their back on our children with autism. 

The comment includes a stinging criticism of the Auton decision in a submission to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as part of the Committee's 2006 Review of Canada’s Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports Under the ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) by the CCPI a national committee of  low-income individuals, anti-poverty organizations, researchers, lawyers and advocates for the purpose of assisting poor people in Canada to secure and assert their rights under international law, the  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter"), human rights legislation and other law in Canada.

Saturday, March 28, 2009


What did the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Auton mean?

The decision was a stunning setback for autistic children and their families who were trying to help them receive treatment for their autism disorders. In practical terms it meant that parents seeking to compel governments to provide treatment for their children' s autism disorders would have to do so through political action. Canadian courts received a clear direction to show deference to the economic and policy decisions of governments with respect to disadvantaged groups like autistic children. No substantive right to treatment for autism was found to exist unless governments decided to provide the treatment. A complaint of discrimination could not be founded unless government had decided to provide the treatment and then did so in a discriminatory fashion.

The decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Auton v. A.G.B.C., 2001 BCSC 220 (CanLII), upheld on appeal by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Auton (Guardian of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2002 BCCA 538 (CanLII), had energized autism advocates across Canada. The fact findings and rulings by the Honourable Madam Justice Allan of the Supreme Court of British Columbia were, in my view, consistent with the spirit and intent of the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that section of Canada's Constitution which is also intended to help fulfill in domestic law Canada's international human rights commitments. Her conclusions about the realities of autism spectrum disorders and the efficacy of Applied Behavior Analysis as a medical treatment have been borne out by the subsequent findings of other bodies, in particular the American Academy of Pediatrics, Management of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2007. Ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada reversed the decisions of Justice Allen and the British Columbia Court of Appeal and effectively quashed any legal recourse to compel Canadian governments to provide treatment to autistic children.

The Auton decision is one of three cited in the Submission of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as part of the Committee's 2006 Review of Canada’s Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports Under the ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). The CCPI argued that Canada has failed to ensure effective remedies to Covenant rights. Specifically Canada has chosen not to make the Covenant directly enforceable in its courts.

The CCPI analysis of the Auton decision follows in full:

"In the Auton case, the Supreme Court dealt for the first time with the question of whether the right to equality under s.15 of the Charter imposes positive obligations to provide specialized treatment for autistic children. The parents of children with autism argued that that children with autism have unique needs and that a refusal by governments to meet those needs has a discriminatory consequence in terms of fundamental issues of dignity, security and human development. This was really the first case to explicitly challenge the Court to recognize that governments have an obligation to meet the unique needs of a clearly disadvantaged group. As such, it attracted ten governmental interveners – Canada and nine provinces, all of whom argued that the Court should not interfere with governments’ decisions on how to allocate scarce resources in healthcare, and that the right to equality should not be interpreted so broadly as to impose this kind of obligation on governments.

The Chief Justice, writing for a unanimous Court, found no violation of the right to equality. Disregarding the Court’s openness on earlier occasions to a broader paradigm of positive obligations consistent with the right to health and other Covenant rights, McLachlin, C.J. declared that the legislature “is free to target the social programs it wishes to fund as a matter of public policy, provided the benefit itself is not conferred in a discriminatory manner.”50 The Court found that to establish a claim of discrimination, the petitioners would need to show differential treatment in comparison to a comparator group - “a non-disabled person or a person suffering a disability other than a mental disability (here autism) seeking or receiving funding for a non-core therapy important for his or her present and future health, which is emergent and only recently becoming recognized as medically required.”51 Without a comparator, those with unique needs have no protection from inequality of benefits. The Chief Justice simply asserted that “there can be no administrative duty to distribute non-existent benefits equally.”

The Supreme Court was considering, in Auton, really for the first time, the constitutionality of doing nothing to meet the needs of an extremely disadvantaged group in society. It appears to have affirmed, in shocking fashion, the government’s ‘right’ to do nothing. The Court made no reference to international human rights law, and made no effort to interpret the right to equality in a more substantive manner, consistent with this Committee’s General Comment No. 9."

In every day language the Supreme Court of Canada in the Auton decision rendered the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canada's commitments under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights meaningless. The analytic gymnastics performed by the Court amounted to saying that if a group is disadvantaged in a way that can not be readily compared to the treatment afforded a comparative group then it can not even begin to assert a claim pursuant to the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless governments grant or recognize a right to specific services by disadvantaged groups Canadian courts will be of no assistance in compelling governments to provide such services.

To paraphrase the CCPI submission the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Auton decision, recognized the constitutionality of government's right to do nothing to help the disadvantaged - in that case autistic children.

Posted in , , , , , , |

LA Times Gets It Right: ABA Is An Autism Treatment Worth Funding

I am a frequent critic of the mainstream media's tendency to misrepresent autism disorders. The mainstream media routinely presents feel good stories of autistic accomplishments, painting autism as merely a different way of thinking and speculating that many of histories great geniuses were probably autistic.  Discussion of autism treatments ranges from riding horses in Mongolia to swimming with dolphins.  More serious mainstream media treatments of autism treatments will acknowledge that early intervention is important for successful outcomes without mentioning ABA, applied behavior analysis, the most solidly evidence backed treatment shown for many years to result in a number of intellectual, language and behavior gains in autistic children who receive early intensive ABA intervention.

I have criticized all aspects of mainstream media misrepresentation of autism including the tendency to hide the evidence based effectiveness of ABA known for many years and confirmed by authorities from the US Surgeon General to the American Academy of Pediatrics.  It is only right that I acknowledge, with gratitude, when a mainstream media institution gets it right as the LA Times has done with its clear, straight to the point,  statement about the importance of ABA as a treatment for autism disorders:

"An autism treatment worth funding


Editorial


A California bill would require insurance companies to cover the cost of applied behavioral analysis for the autistic. It's good policy.


September 30, 2011


State law requires insurers to include coverage for autism in comprehensive healthcare policies. Now, lawmakers want to go a step further, requiring coverage of a particular autism treatment: applied behavioral analysis. Insurers are resisting. They don't question the effectiveness of the therapy; they just say it doesn't fit the definition of "medical" treatment. Their position reflects how crucial parts of the healthcare system are wedded to the status quo, regardless of what's best for patients. State lawmakers have passed a bill to overcome the insurers' resistance, and Gov. Jerry Brown should sign it."

Posted in , , , , |

Laurent Mottron's Dangerous Anti Autism Cure Beliefs Resurface

Dr. Laurent Mottron has spent his entire career studying persons with high functioning autism and Aspergers.   Even as the parents of autistic children and good hearted people everywhere feel sadness and grief over the loss of another autistic child presumed lost Dr. Mottron promotes and oversells a study he led which according, to the good Doctor, supports his belief that autism should not be cured.

I have been unable, in the several years that I have been aware of his anti autism cure ideology,  to find any indication that Dr. Mottron has spent any time working with, or studying, those severely affected by autism disorders, whether they be the 75-80% of persons with Autistic Disorder and Intellectual Disability, those who engage in debilitating and dangerous self injurious behavior or those who wander from home and caregivers to danger, and sometimes, death.  The loss last year of James DeLorey in a snow storm, the Australian child who wandered from home into automobile traffic, the still ongoing tragedy  but now presumed death, of Adam Benhamma near Montreal, will have no impact on the entrenched "autism is beautiful beliefs" of Dr. Laurent Mottron. 

I admit straight up that I personally do not subscribe to Laurent Mottron's anti autism cure ideology and do not trust any study by him  like the one now being touted, which he led, concerning "autistic" brains.  I would ask the professionals who actually work trying to help autistic children lead  fuller lives, including those who actually work with autistic children with severe autism disorders, to analyze carefully and critically Dr. Mottron's new study.  I will be very surprised if the "autistic" brain Dr. Mottron reports on is anything other than a snapshot of some of the very high functioning autistic subjects he has worked with for decades to the exclusion of  severely affected, intellectually challenged persons with autism disorders.

Dr. Laurent Mottron is not just a researcher who has devoted decades to studying high functioning autistic persons.  He has also removed himself from the realm of scientific detachment and objectivity and  involved himself in Canada's legal system in an effort to prevent medicare coverage of ABA treatment for autistic children in British Columbia in the Auton case Auton (Guardian  ad litem  of)  v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657, 2004 SCC 78  case.  In Auton  Mottron helped launch the career of high functioning autism researcher and anti ABA advocate Michelle Dawson  with his affidavit in support of her intervention, as an "autistic", before the Supreme Court of Canada.   In his supporting affidavit the good Doctor solemnly declared and affirmed the following statement of expert opinion:

5.
Ms. Dawson has a tremendous understanding of both the difficulties faced by autistic individuals in our society, as well as the tremendous inherent strengths of many of these individuals. 


Personally I have never seen Michelle Dawson make any statement that reflects any understanding, let alone a "tremendous" understanding of the difficulties faced by autistic individuals in Canadian society.  I have never seen or heard statements by her acknowledging the existence of the many persons with Autistic Disorder and Intellectual Disability. I don't know how her life experience as a very intelligent, adult diagnosed "autistic" gives her tremendous, or any,  insight into the challenges faced by low functioning, intellectually disabled autistic children.  Nor have I seen her, or the good Doctor, make any statements describing or addressing in any intelligent fashion the many serious behavior challenges faced by those severely affected by autism disorders.  What is clear though is that Michelle Dawson and Dr. Laurent Mottron both believe that autism is a good thing that should not be cured.  They have long held these anti cure, including anti ABA treatment,  autism beliefs. 

Dr. Mottron also appeared as an unidentified expert witness "the mysterious Dr. M" in Ms Dawson's case before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Dawson v. Canada Post Corporation, 2008 CHRT 41,  in which he described the idea of curing autism as nonsense:

[86] Ms. Dawson testified that autism is a neurological disability and that people generally do not have a good understanding of this reality. Ms. Dawson stated repeatedly that autism was not a mental illness. For her, a mental illness has an onset, various treatments, and there is a return to the previous state to a greater or lesser degree. Both Ms. Dawson and Dr. M., as will be seen, pointed out that the notion of curing autism was nonsensical. Still many people want to cure autism.

....

b) The testimony of Dr. M

[99] At the beginning of his testimony, Dr. M., who is a psychiatrist, was qualified by the Tribunal as an expert in autism. Dr. M. filed a report as well as three letters pertaining to Ms.Dawson’s condition.

[100] Dr. M. testified on the nature of autism, autistic individuals as well as on Ms. Dawson’scondition. The credibility of Dr. M. as well as the accuracy of his statements and opinions wasnot challenged by the Respondent. The Tribunal finds Dr. M.’s testimony highly credible even if the evidence shows that in recent years, Ms. Dawson has worked with him and has co-authored scientific articles with Dr. M.

And now, surprise, surprise, surprise,  Dr. Mottron has published a study which, according to the good Doctor, supports his long held belief that autism should not be cured.  I wonder how many low functioning, severely challenged, intellectually disabled autistic subjects were included in Dr. Mottron's study? I do not buy what the mysterious Dr. M is selling and I doubt that most parents with autistic children, and most professionals tasked with addressing some of the serious and dangerous challenges faced by autistic children and adults,  will buy it either.  

Dr. Mottron is not necessarily an objective, detached medical professional or scientific researcher.  He has long held a belief that autism should not be cured and his latest study conclusions are used to support  his own beliefs. Given his long held personal beliefs his study, and his public commentaries about what conclusions can be drawn from that study, should be given close, careful scrutiny.   In particular his conclusion that the study supports his belief that persons with autism should not be cured should be given very close examination.  As Dr. Mottron stated in the Vancouver Sun:

""While this study does not conclusively show a causal effect between brain activity and the enhanced abilities of those with autism, lead researcher Laurent Mottron of the University of Montreal said it is the most "robust" evidence yet suggesting a link. He said it adds another argument against attempts to "cure" autistics.

When we try to turn an autistic toddler into a non-autistic toddler, it's painful, it's expensive and it does not work," he said. "We should not try to assimilate or break the difference (between autistics and non-autistics), but just admit that it's a difference that has good and bad consequences."

High functioning autism researcher Dr. Laurent Mottron has been promoting his anti autism cure belief for many years.  Hopefully his latest efforts to thwart treatment and cure of autism disorders will enjoy no more success than his previous efforts.  The chance to improve the lives of autistic children and adults is too big a price to pay for the promotion of Dr. Mottron's personal belief system.

Posted in , , , , , , , , |

Search

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark. Converted by LiteThemes.com.