Edited by author 11-04-2009 09:44 PM
Catching up...

1. I disagree with all of /m9889 in one way or another or many ways, but the ASAN thing means I can't say much.

LBRB (which does not run the Hub, but is its founding and main blog) setting an example by banning polite, factual comments by autistics is one thing.

ASAN's blanket exclusion of an autistic from any venue where ASAN is present (this means, e.g., I can't have any say in decisions about the Hub, unlike all other Hub bloggers), and their use of denigration and extreme false accusations, is of a much greater magnitude.

My errors were a.) to politely and accurately (with sources) report ASAN's public positions and statements; and b.) to politely and factually question these, e.g., by asking what evidence they are based on.

ASAN considers this ample reason to denigrate and exclude an autistic researcher, in an amazing variety of ways, and very thoroughly and permanently. And ASAN has widespread support for doing this.

2. Re /m9890 , the URL I provided for the paper in /m9885 doesn't work, sorry. The paper seems to be a moving target. If you want to read it, I suggest using the non-working URL to get access to the journal's current-issue table of contents, where you'll find the paper under "case reports."

The claim of recovery in this paper is primarily based on the plummeting CARS score, over the span of 13 days. The authors were solely concerned with the presence or absence of autistic traits and abilities as identified and quantified via the CARS. The authors express skepticism (as I wrote) about Lovaas' findings on the grounds that Lovaas used no measure or instrument specific to autistic traits and abilities.

This is all keeping in mind that the CARS should be considered a screening instrument, at best...

3. Re /m9892 , wow, and nobody's going to say this is weak central coherence--I hope....

4. Re /m9893 , I wish I was there. Yet another reason to move to PEI.