Comments on: Avoid clichés like the plague

By: David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)

David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:36:39 +0000

“So should sticking to the vaccine causation idea against evidence be called ADAVism?”

And should the long-term tendency to do so be included in the next DSM as being ‘ADAVistic personality disorder’?

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:36:27 +0000

to be fair, I do think that the whole “mom against the scientific establishment” has been perpetuated by moms themselves.

there is a whole genre of books – some good, some bad – that present the author (an autism mom) as starting out on her journey like a deer in headlights until she discovers the “truth” about what her child needs. Uusually, that “truth” is an alternative to common practice – whether a DAN! protocol or some other approach – and as often as not it’s presented as actually “recovering” the child.

Jenny McCarthy is by far not the first mom to write such a book, and she certainly won’t be the last. But I have been absolutely astonished at the impact her book and her appearances have had on “autism moms.”

Lisa (about.com guide to autism)

By: unruly asides

unruly asides — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:32:40 +0000

i appreciated the objective intelligence (meaning, trying not to be reactionary method) in your post.

By: Kristina Chew

Kristina Chew — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:50:41 +0000

It annoys me greatly (nice way to put it) to see the term “parent advocates” (meaning parents who believe that a vaccine caused their child to beomce autistic) used to mean all parents of autistic children. Thanks much for this.

By: Ms. Clark

Ms. Clark — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:07:46 +0000

So should sticking to the vaccine causation idea against evidence be called ADAVism?

Good advice for reporters here autblog. I hope many will take it to heart.

By: isles

isles — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:23:40 +0000

Excellent advice for any reporter about to take on autism.

One addendum to your mention of the IOM noting that it couldn’t rule out a connection in some “small subset” – in its next sentence, the IOM continued that no particular evidence for this proposition had been presented. I think the second sentence is important for conveying the point that the possibility was purely an artifact of the logic of statistics.