Subscribe
Previous Post
“Environmentally-acquired Neuroimmune Disorder” or “E.N.D.”: That was a new term that journalist David Kirby suggested that should be used for autistic children with numerous gastrointestinal problems, over a year ago.
More recently—in writing about the case of Hannah Poling—Kirby has suggested that some type of “vaccine aggravated mitochondrial disorder” is “mimicking” autism. And then there’s the autism organizations such as Safe Minds and Generation Rescue who would suggest that autism is “mercury poisoning” or a “mercury-induced neurological disorder.”
And now today in the Huffington Post, Kirby uses the term “autistic encephalopathy” to describe what Hannah Poling has.
Orac at Respectful Insolence has referred to Kirby’s new “terms” for autism as rebranding.” Kirby does seem to be playing the chameleon with each “rebranding,” changing how he describes autism and its causes as the latest news and developments in autism research suit him.
Contrast these creative diagnostic slights-of-words with the often-expressed relief of parents to get a diagnosis, to know that “it’s autism” so they start figuring out services and therapies for a child, and Kirby’s repeated attempts to rebrand “autism” as something-or-other biologically based disorder seem to be so much playing with words.
And saying “it’s autism” or whatever—that’s just the beginning to helping a child achieve all that she or he can and will.
1229 days ago
[...] constant theme in 2008 was the rebranding of autism, as Orac at Respectful Insolence referred to how the likes of David Kirby have been constantly [...]
1295 days ago
[...] who regularly follow this topic have, too, regularly noted David Kirby’s reliance on rebranding and rhetoric to keep the notion of a vaccine-autism link alive. “‘You don’t vaccinate [...]
1310 days ago
[...] but “pro-vaccine-safety.” Expect a lot more moving of the goalposts as autism gets rebranded: So the link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism does not seem “so [...]
1322 days ago
[...] Dr. Parikh explains why after assessing the claims of each of Kirby’s slides with an eye to Kirby’s use of certain rhetorical strategies. Two examples: Slide 3: “A New Autism Vocabulary” [compare this phrase to Kirby’s constant rebranding of autism] [...]
1366 days ago
[...] having previously rebranded autism as “Environmentally-acquired Neuroimmune Disorder” or “E.N.D.” (that was over a year ago) [...]
1369 days ago
[...] Autism notes in a review of it. It seems that, once again, Kirby is trying to make and even to rebrand autism, and here to suggest that it is a life-threatening condition, like cardiovascular diseases [...]
1434 days ago
[...] The Rallying of the GreenThe “green vaccine thing” is but another instance of rebranding. [...]
1438 days ago
[...] this “green vaccine thing” is but another instance of rebranding, as in the various different names that Evidence of Harm author David Kirby regularly engages in, [...]
1444 days ago
[...] Kirby is again rebranding autism in his latest post about fever, vaccines, and mitochondrial autism. Now it’s [...]
1496 days ago
[...] The Rebranding of AutismOnce again, David Kirby has a new term to describe autism and its causes as the latest news and developments in autism research suit him. [...]
1498 days ago
[...] Kirby’s post only offers up a new rehashing of his same old points. In Kirby’s writings, the word “autism” a synonym for a “child who is not normal and has certain [...]
Yep. Actually I took “ontogeny and phylology” from psychology–behaviorism to be exact.
However the significant clause is the “and”, which is not inconsistent with Emily’s description of the above, although I guess that one could argue that in some circumstances phylology could become part of ontogeny, given the example of the DES.
Actually there are examples in the animal kingdom (although we generally hate being compared to animals), of genes being switched on and off with pretty dramatic effects on phenotype (changing from one sex to another in response to relative population distribution) within much shorter than a generation. However the ability to do so was probably part of a much larger and long term process.
Sorry, Kristina, kind of drifting far afield from the original post.
Ontogeny would be “Nature” and Philology would be ‘Nuture” from a psychological perspective.
“Genes and environment are not and are never mutually exclusive.”
I agree. I also include environment to include beyond that that we think of ala environmentalism although those are factors; to include the processes involved in learning and experience/interaction with the physical and social worlds. Ontogeny and Phylology.
Chuck, I couldn’t agree more on your comments about biological. I actually think that most things in the DSM should be dropped. It would be laughable how out-of-date much of that stuff is if it weren’t so very seriously real.
I’m a biologist. I don’t look at things from a psychological perspective, ever, for the primary reason that I cannot stand psychology as a field. Genes are always under the influence of environment, and that’s simply the way it is. As you well know, there is dispute over the assertion that ASD is “growing” in the population. And since no one has claimed that “genetics” (which is a very general term) *can* “scientifically” prove what is contributing to the rise, I’m not sure why you’re saying that. First of all, autism is not a “documented genetic disorder.” Second of all, even if the cause were an environmental trigger, genes are usually what will be involved in the response.
It is a false construct to counterbalance what you are calling “nature” and “nurture.” Biologically, it simply is not reality. And even reducing “Nature” to “genes” is simplistic in the extreme and does not reflect all of the fundamental biological pathways beyond the gene that lead to who we are.
Yes, there are environmental stimuli that are adversely affecting our genes and “potentially” causing de novo mutations…the most obvious example that comes to mind is cancer, which is pretty much exactly what you describe in that sentence. But other, less-obvious ones include endocrine-disrupting compounds and their association with testicular problems (nondescent, cancer, infertility) and hypospadias, a genetically associated congenital malformation under influence from environmental factors (we call it a multifactorial anomaly) that some researchers have said is *on the rise* just in the last couple of decades. It is the most common congenital anomaly among boys worldwide.
There is a nice example of the power of environmental influence on genes in the compound DES, which was a powerful estrogen given to women a few decades ago to prevent miscarriage. It proved to be strongly linked to the development of reproductive abnormalities in the offspring of these women, especially the daughters, who developed rare forms of cervical cancer, among other things. And it’s been proven that these effects were so profound in the grandparental generation that now the granddaughters and grandsons exhibit problems related to the exposure of their PARENTS to DES IN UTERO. In other words, the alterations in their parental genes because of that exposure were transmitted to the offspring, even though the offspring themselves were never exposed and the parents hadn’t been exposed since very early in their fetal development. How do ya think a “nature vs. nurture” person would run with that one?
Genes and environment are not and are never mutually exclusive. This viewpoint has long been considered a false construct and a false dichotomy among people who actually work with genes. No cell is an island.
Chuck, I couldn’t agree more on your comments about biological. I actually think that most things in the DSM should be dropped. It would be laughable how out-of-date much of that stuff is if it weren’t so very seriously real.
I’m a biologist. I don’t look at things from a psychological perspective, ever, for the primary reason that I cannot stand psychology as a field. Genes are always under the influence of environment, and that’s simply the way it is. As you well know, there is dispute over the assertion that ASD is “growing” in the population. And since no one has claimed that “genetics” (which is a very general term) *can* “scientifically” prove what is contributing to the rise, I’m not sure why you’re saying that. First of all, autism is not a “documented genetic disorder.” Second of all, even if the cause were an environmental trigger, genes are usually what will be involved in the response.
It is a false construct to counterbalance what you are calling “nature” and “nurture.” Biologically, it simply is not reality. And even reducing “Nature” to “genes” is simplistic in the extreme and does not reflect all of the fundamental biological pathways beyond the gene that lead to who we are.
Yes, there are environmental stimuli that are adversely affecting our genes and “potentially” causing de novo mutations…the most obvious example that comes to mind is cancer, which is pretty much exactly what you describe in that sentence. But other, less-obvious ones include endocrine-disrupting compounds and their association with testicular problems (nondescent, cancer, infertility) and hypospadias, a genetically associated congenital malformation under influence from environmental factors (we call it a multifactorial anomaly) that some researchers have said is *on the rise* just in the last couple of decades. It is the most common congenital anomaly among boys worldwide.
There is a nice example of the power of environmental influence on genes in the compound DES, which was a powerful estrogen given to women a few decades ago to prevent miscarriage. It proved to be strongly linked to the development of reproductive abnormalities in the offspring of these women, especially the daughters, who developed rare forms of cervical cancer, among other things. And it’s been proven that these effects were so profound in the grandparental generation that now the granddaughters and grandsons exhibit problems related to the exposure of their PARENTS to DES IN UTERO. In other words, the alterations in their parental genes because of that exposure were transmitted to the offspring, even though the offspring themselves were never exposed and the parents hadn’t been exposed since very early in their fetal development. How do ya think a “nature vs. nurture” person would run with that one?
Genes and environment are not and are never mutually exclusive. This viewpoint has long been considered a false construct and a false dichotomy among people who actually work with genes. No cell is an island.
Emily,
“Biological”
Then it should be dropped in the DSM-V as this book only defines psychological disorders. Dropping homosexuality from the DSM is proof of that. All previous publications fail to mention any biological connection and fail to accurately define what “autism” really is so they have to keep updating it, so it should be moved to a medical context.
If it is a biological disorder then there is obviously a huge disconnect in the institutions that educate medical professionals about biological disorders or there would not be “better awareness“ about something that affects 1 out of every 150 patients and it shouldn’t have taken years to educate them.
“Nature”
From a psychological perspective, “Nature” is defined as genetics, “Nuture” is all exposures one has over the course of their live. So “Nature” and “Genes are always under the influence of environment.” is contradictory as the environment is “Nuture”.
If genes are always under the influence of the environment, then what is driving the current continued growth in the ASD population? Genetics cannot scientifically prove what is contributing to the rise. Has there ever been a large global change in the rate of any documented genetic disorder in one generation? What other environmental stimuli are adversely effecting our genes or potentially causing de nuvo mutations?
Biological. Nature. Genes are always under the influence of environment. No cell is an island.
1500 days ago
[...] you’d like a sense of where the next rebranding of autism is going, look no further than what Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey say on CNN.com today: We believe [...]
Is “autism” a psychological framework or a biological framework? Nature or nurture? Genes or environment? If a little of the “either or” then how much should be contributed to each side?