just *treat them*. As the medical conditions they are, that deserve attention, whether the patient is autistic or nonautistic.
The treatment”, if changes the overall situation, deserves enough attention. What autistics deserve- or better what I consider my autistic son deserves- is the respect for his condition to be properly considered in the overall, not in pieces.

What the people putting all their eggs into the “biomed” basket don’t understand, is (at least) twofold:
I have never put my all efforts in biomed; biomed, as many many other mainstreamed tools I use are these: tools to improve my son´s life quality and to give him the education he needs

(1.) After the biological condition(s) causing danger or distress are treated, the child still needs education. And there are still likely to be differences in learning style and in relative strengths and weaknesses at various cognitive tasks, that require specialized approaches, supports, or accommodations.
Sometimes , but sometimes there are also real improvements that make these needs minor. The problem is when the assignation is to this or that for sure. Placebo effect, natural maturity with age- that also brings changes at systemic levels, the proper treatment of CMP, the proper treatment of sensorial issues- if present- the proper emotional environment- familiar, school- the proper effort of education at school and in family, the consideration of the individual needs in the management of the social situations ( or not) are part of the potential improvement.
You are assigning in general to biomed what is the view of some particular group here.

(2.) There are still going to be differences in cognition, sensory processing, affective processing, and aesthetic and social proclivities that are *autistic*.
Surely

It is the effort to eradicate or “cure” *those* things — not the factors creating gross medical danger or distress, nor whatever factors grossly impede learning — that pro-neurodiversity advocates question.

I understand- and with this overall presentation I do not disagree with THIS kind of aspects. But in the same way that Í consider that today we can not say if we have ( or not) and epidemics, I consider that you do not know the impact of CMP in autism- at individual level- until you do not properly test/diagnose/treat them. My son, again had detected near 45 medical conditions.And the treatment of all this – plus the overall accomodation of family/school/environment- has changed his life for good enormously in terms of happinness and well -being for HIM.
The problem is when the discussion is presented in terms of “cure”- as if for example you can “cure” being shy- but also there are so much we do not know about autism that to consider
1-that all biomed parents are similar
2-that we can not find a place of understanding
is doing at disservice, at least to my son.
You are assigning to me ideas that I do not have. What I am proposing is that the phylosophy of the approach I am doing is totally different from what you are presenting as paradigmatic.I have not problem with my son being shy or having stereotypes because they give him confort; what I have problems is what the medical conditions that – because of their nature- were affecting severely his development ( gastrointestinal, immunological, toxicological , nutritional/metabolic and neurotransmitter issues-no known genetic problem)whose treatment can ameliorate several of the most severe problems ( in terms of language, hyperactivity, behavior problems) that many times are present and assigned to “autism”.
For me, not all is different brain structure prenatally and genetically conditionated.
And yes, I have read with interest and attention the information that Amanda many times has provided about her experiences and her health. I appreciate very much her honesty on these aspects.
Respect and consideration of the human beings we all are can be present always, even if we think different- even strongly different-, autistics or not. For me, to hear and to learn from autistic adults has been extremely important. it has opened my mind and my heart to their experience and it has been enormoulsy important to understand better my son. BUT my autistic son also has other needs I must consider with care, with research and with science related to his health.
If you are interested you can read my blog or to continue this exchange of ideas by e-mail.

Cur dextrae iungere dextram
non datur, ac veras audire et reddere voces?’

Vergil, Aeneid.1-408-9

“Why is it not given to join right hand to right hand, and to hear and give back true voices [words]?”

This is Aeneas speaking to his mother Venus, disguised as a huntress. He has been shipwrecked near Carthage on his way to Italy.

“Harold, stop trying to put this strawman over on people.

You don’t seem to understand, do you, that eventually, as your son progresses and ages, you’re going to need to be on the same side of many battles as those “neurodiversity ideologues” you make baldfaced false claims about now.

I hope that either you begin to see the error of your ways in this regard, or that the allies you will need as your son grows older are extremely forgiving.”

I am taking care of my son Phil. Without your help. I also advocate for other autistic children, youth AND ADULTS.

There is nothing rubbish about what I said. ABA is used BOTH as a health and an education intervention. Ms Chew’s comments and neurodiversity ideology both try to say that you must have one or the other. The rubbish is found in ideological dumps where it is alleged it is presumed that because one advocates for a cure that one must therefore be excluding education.

I advocate for cures, treatments, better education and decent residential and health care for autistic persons, children, youth and adults, in my home province of New Brunswick. I get off my butt and try to do something about it. I don’t need you to tell me to do what I have BEEN DOING for 8 years. But I appreciate your genuine concern for my son’s welfare.

One of the basic problems in your comments generally Phil is that you presume that the parent advocates fighting for their own childrens’ interests know less about what is best for their interests than you do as a complete stranger who does not share their childrens’ life situations. It is a problem inherent in neodiversity commentary, autism’s vox falsus/falsa.

“It’s wonderful to hear about all the funds being raised for autism research, but families have a lot of needs now.”

How would an organization intent on meeting those needs catch up to Autism Speaks?

Of course, they could choose not to catch up, letting the well-funded monster continue on, but that won’t help anyone -now-, and it allows a lot of bad propaganda to continue to flood the social consciousness until autism=plague/horror/subhuman is really all anyone knows.

Having read several of your comments, I’m not sure that we actually disagree on anything.

…and my comment was in response to what Apple_M said.

It’s not so much the volume of coverage as the tone of it that strikes me as different from the tone with which scientific “breakthrough treatments” are discussed and marketed. Biomedical treatments are often touted (in the US at any rate) as potentially providing healing, recovery, cure (consider the recently published book by Dr. Kenneth Bock). I think it’s important to point out, as you and Harold and Phil do, that children need to be educated, and this education may require attention to different learning styles that require different approaches, attention to sensory needs, and so forth.

And I am with you on thinking we are on “the right path,” and think these discussions necessary for keeping us on it.

d-Why is a fight fight fight fight to properly test an autistic child for probable CMP in the traditional medicine? The assignation of some of the symptoms of my son to ” the autism” and my acceptation of this would have been extremely dangerous for his health.

Indeed. Read some of what Amanda Baggs and others have written, about their struggles to get medical conditions seen and treated properly as such, and not swept under the rug because the patient is autistic.

If biological conditions are creating danger or distress, *treat them*. Don’t try to wrap “autism” around them; don’t try to generalize them in to some sort of unified root cause of autism; just *treat them*. As the medical conditions they are, that deserve attention, whether the patient is autistic or nonautistic.

What the people putting all their eggs into the “biomed” basket don’t understand, is (at least) twofold:

(1.) After the biological condition(s) causing danger or distress are treated, the child still needs education. And there are still likely to be differences in learning style and in relative strengths and weaknesses at various cognitive tasks, that require specialized approaches, supports, or accommodations.

(2.) There are still going to be differences in cognition, sensory processing, affective processing, and aesthetic and social proclivities that are *autistic*. It is the effort to eradicate or “cure” *those* things — not the factors creating gross medical danger or distress, nor whatever factors grossly impede learning — that pro-neurodiversity advocates question.