M. Savage calls Autistic children--BRATS!

Just for the record:

The Autism Controversy

My comments about autism were meant to boldly awaken parents and children to the medical community's attempt to label too many children or adults as "autistic."

Just as some drug companies have overdiagnosed "ADD" and "ADHD" to peddle dangerous speed-like drugs to children as young as 4 years of age, this cartel of doctors and drug companies is now creating a national panic by overdiagnosing "autism, for which there is no definitive medical diagnosis!

Many children are being victimized by being diagnosed with an "illness" which may not exist, in all cases. Just a few weeks ago doctors recommended dangerous anti-cholesterol drugs for children as young as 2 years of age! Without any scientific studies on the possible dangers of such drugs on children, corrupt doctors made this controversial, unscientific recommendation.

Increasingly, our children are being used as profit centers by a greedy, corrupt medical/pharmaceutical establishment. As the brother of a severely disabled person who suffered and died in a New York "snake-pit" of a "mental hospital," I know first-hand what true disability is.

To permit greedy doctors to include children in medical categories which may not be appropriate is a crime against that child and their family. Let the truly autistic be treated. Let the falsely diagnosed be free.

Michael Savage
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
This is what happens when we don't educate our children. They grow up ignorant and end up on the radio like this moron Savage!:giggle:

How in the hell can he make a statement reagarding 99% misdiagnosis of autism, and change it to a diagnosis of behavior problems. I'd like to know where he got his medical degree or his doctorate in psychology. He is a freakin' radio announcer. He has no specialized knowledge regarding autism, and is a bigot and a perpetrator is stereotypes.

This kind of behavior makes me so angry, I don't even know what else to say.
Click to expand...
From Savage's bio:

"Trained as a scientist, he holds Master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Epidemiology and Nutritional Science."

From his statement:

"Savage explained to the New York Times his use of the figure 99 percent was hyperbole."
Savage defends criticism of autism 'racket'
 
Here's another viewpoint:

November 13, 2007
Crusades Versus Caution
By Thomas Sowell

Autism is a devastating condition, both for those who have it and for their parents. At this point, its causes are unknown and if there is any cure for it, that is unknown as well.

There are many ways of coping with tragedies. One of the less promising, and often dangerous, ways is to launch a crusade.

Crusades may be emotionally satisfying, politically popular and welcomed by the media. But crusaders are not known for caution, for weighing evidence or for counting the costs, which may extend well beyond the cost in money.

There have already been many casualties in the crusade against autism, and there may be far more if recent recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics are carried out to have every child tested for autism twice by age two.

Think about it: How many people are qualified to diagnose autism? Enough to test every child in America? Not bloody likely.

Professor Stephen Camarata of Vanderbilt University has tested and treated children with autism for more than 20 years.

"While it is relatively easy to identify a five year old as autistic," according to Professor Camarata, "it is much more difficult to reliably diagnose a preschooler or toddler."

The word "reliably" is crucial. Anybody can unreliably diagnose autism, just as anybody can unreliably predict the weather or the stock market.

The consequences of unreliable diagnoses of autism can be traumatic for parents and children alike.

As a result of organizing a group of parents of late-talking children back in 1993, I encountered many stories of emotional devastation that these parents went through because their children were diagnosed as autistic -- diagnoses which the passing years have shown to be false more often than not.

As a result of writing books about these parents and children -- the most recent being "The Einstein Syndrome" -- I have heard from more than a hundred other parents with very similar stories.

Professor Camarata at Vanderbilt has a far larger group of parents of late-talking children, since he specializes in studying and treating speech disorders, and he has likewise found numerous cases of false diagnoses of autism among children who are late in beginning to talk.

More is involved than the needless emotional stresses of the parents. Many of the treatments inflicted on children diagnosed as autistic would be called child abuse if they were not done as medical procedures, and they can set back or distort a child's development.

Once the "autistic" label has been put on a child, it can follow him and her into schools and beyond, causing that child to be treated differently by teachers, nurses and others.

Too many people refuse to reconsider any evidence contrary to the label, however blatant that evidence becomes or however much that evidence increases over the years.

The initial evidence on which a diagnosis of autism was based may be nothing more than a checklist of characteristics of autistic children, often administered by someone with nothing more to go on than that checklist.

The fundamental problem is that many items on such a checklist can apply to many children who are not autistic. A study of gifted children, for example, found many of them showing the kinds of characteristics found on checklists for autism.

According to Professor Camarata, "because there are no reliable biomedical markers for autism, diagnosis must rely on subjective rating scales making it difficult if not impossible to conduct accurate screening in toddlers or preschoolers."

But it is precisely the checklist approach that is being urged by those who are crusading for every child to be diagnosed for autism before age two.

Like most crusaders, they seem unwilling to consider the possibility of errors, much less the consequences of those errors.

The very definition of autism has been expanded in recent years to include what is called "the autism spectrum." What this means, among other things, is that there is now far more wiggle room for those whose diagnoses have proved to be wrong, who refuse to admit it, and who are now even more unaccountable than ever.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Crusades Versus Caution
Click to expand...
 
Also:

Crusades Versus Caution: Part II
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The recently launched crusade to have every child tested for autism before the age of two has as its reason an opportunity for "early intervention" to treat the condition.

Dr. Scott Myers, a pediatrician, has been quoted by Reuters news service as saying that autistic children who get earlier treatment "do better in the long run."

That may be true if the children are genuinely autistic. But the dangers of false diagnoses of toddlers and preschoolers have been pointed out by Professor Stephen Camarata of Vanderbilt University, who has tested and treated children with autism for more than 20 years and has encountered many cases of inaccurate diagnoses.

A prudent trade-off, as distinguished from a crusade, would weigh the dangers of false diagnoses against the benefits of "early intervention."

There is already considerable evidence of false diagnoses of preschool children as autistic, and the treatments inflicted on them can be abusive, with incalculable negative effects on their development.

What about the positive effects of "early intervention"?

According to Professor Camarata, those children "with true autism" are "very difficult to treat and may never say 'mommy' or learn to take care of themselves without Herculean efforts by their parents and teachers."

The limitations of what can be achieved with even early intervention mean that there can be real heartbreak, whether a toddler or preschooler is either falsely or correctly diagnosed as being autistic.

Much has been made of statistics showing a sharp increase in diagnoses of autism in recent years.

What has gotten much less attention is the changing definition of autism, which raises the question whether there has been an actual change in the real world or simply a change in the way words are used when collecting statistics.

People today are often spoken of as being "on the autistic spectrum," rather than as having autism.

While there are some conditions which are much like autism, there are other conditions, such as having a very high IQ or simply being late in talking, which often include characteristics listed on checklists for autism. These are open invitations to false diagnoses.

We would see the dangers immediately if people who wear glasses were included on "the blindness spectrum" or people with harmless moles were included on "the cancer spectrum."

Blindness, cancer and autism are all too serious -- indeed, catastrophic -- to use loose definitions that fudge the difference between accurate and inaccurate diagnoses.

Loose definitions of autism produce bigger and more newsworthy statistics, which in turn can attract more children into existing programs and attract more money from the government, foundations and other sources to support those programs.

Many parents have told me that they have been urged to let their children be labeled autistic, or on the autistic spectrum, in order to get money for speech therapy or other conditions from grants that are available to deal with autism.

Professor Camarata points out that the "less precise 'autism spectrum'" label "has had the unintended consequence of diluting resources, research and services to those children and families who most need the support" -- that is, families whose children suffer from genuine autism.

Loose definitions also promote the illusion of "cures" for autism, since most late-talking children who were never autistic in the first place "will be miraculously 'cured' because most late talkers who are otherwise unimpaired learn to talk with little or no treatment," according to Professor Camarata.

Parents whose children are late in talking or have other troubling problems would do well to seek diagnoses from the most highly qualified professionals they can find -- but not rely on the facile checklists being promoted in the current crusade for universal diagnosis of infants and toddlers for autism, without facing the question whether or not there are enough people qualified to make such diagnoses.
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com :: Crusades Versus Caution: Part II
Click to expand...
 
That article is so many forms of negative it's not even funny. Lets start with the opening note,

"Autism is a devastating condition... for those who have it"

It is? Since when? By what right does the author speak for my feelings? To put this into perspective, how would you culturally Deaf folks feel if someone wrote "Deafness is devastating for those who have it."


"There are many ways of coping with tragedies."

A CHILD is not a TRAGEDY.

"Many of the treatments inflicted on children diagnosed as autistic would be called child abuse if they were not done as medical procedures, and they can set back or distort a child's development."

So it's all OK to abuse -autistic- children, just not those falsely diagnosed as autistic? Can't be hurting the normal ones.. can we?

"People today are often spoken of as being "on the autistic spectrum," rather than as having autism."

"We would see the dangers immediately if people who wear glasses were included on "the blindness spectrum" or people with harmless moles were included on "the cancer spectrum."Blindness, cancer and autism are all too serious -- indeed, catastrophic -- to use loose definitions that fudge the difference between accurate and inaccurate diagnoses."

The 'spectrum' essentially includes autism, aspergers, and PDD-nos.

To speak towards the validity of an "NOS" diagnosis, I will compare with eating disorders. A woman who is 5'4 and weighs 108 pounds has a BMI of 18.5 does not qualify for a diagnosis of anorexia nervosa based on her weight. Even if she has dropped 100+ pounds in a very short period of time, even if she has an intense fear of gaining weight, even if she has a grossly distorted body image, even if she has lost her period- even if she is equally likely to die as any 'genuine' anorexic. Is her diagnosis of "ED-NOS" any less valid than a diagnosis of anorexia?

The same applies to Autism. Diagnostic criteria is strict and can exclude people who genuinely need a diagnosis for personal reasons, to receive support services, so on. Being on 'the spectrum' as opposed to having 'classic' autism doesn't make you less autistic.

And since when doesn't blindness have a spectrum? We start at low vision (20/70), run through legal blindness (20/200) down to hand motion (20/8000) and all the way to No Light Perception. And again, I will be critical of the article's wording. BLINDNESS IS NOT CATASTROPHIC. To compare it to having cancer is downright insulting.

The moral of my long story:

That article sucks. It has so many holes in it, that I can only begin to touch on them.

It's all about perspective, and ultimately, when people with a autism are spoken for (and have their own voices ignored) you end up with these gross misconceptions about the nature of autism, the potential of 'untreated' and 'cure free' autistics, and the very real and complete life we can lead. So, I speak for myself and I ask you to ignore those who speak for me.
 
Aleser said:
That article is so many forms of negative it's not even funny. Lets start with the opening note,

"Autism is a devastating condition... for those who have it"

It is? Since when? By what right does the author speak for my feelings? To put this into perspective, how would you culturally Deaf folks feel if someone wrote "Deafness is devastating for those who have it."


"There are many ways of coping with tragedies."

A CHILD is not a TRAGEDY.

"Many of the treatments inflicted on children diagnosed as autistic would be called child abuse if they were not done as medical procedures, and they can set back or distort a child's development."

So it's all OK to abuse -autistic- children, just not those falsely diagnosed as autistic? Can't be hurting the normal ones.. can we?

"People today are often spoken of as being "on the autistic spectrum," rather than as having autism."

"We would see the dangers immediately if people who wear glasses were included on "the blindness spectrum" or people with harmless moles were included on "the cancer spectrum."Blindness, cancer and autism are all too serious -- indeed, catastrophic -- to use loose definitions that fudge the difference between accurate and inaccurate diagnoses."

The 'spectrum' essentially includes autism, aspergers, and PDD-nos.

To speak towards the validity of an "NOS" diagnosis, I will compare with eating disorders. A woman who is 5'4 and weighs 108 pounds has a BMI of 18.5 does not qualify for a diagnosis of anorexia nervosa based on her weight. Even if she has dropped 100+ pounds in a very short period of time, even if she has an intense fear of gaining weight, even if she has a grossly distorted body image, even if she has lost her period- even if she is equally likely to die as any 'genuine' anorexic. Is her diagnosis of "ED-NOS" any less valid than a diagnosis of anorexia?

The same applies to Autism. Diagnostic criteria is strict and can exclude people who genuinely need a diagnosis for personal reasons, to receive support services, so on. Being on 'the spectrum' as opposed to having 'classic' autism doesn't make you less autistic.

And since when doesn't blindness have a spectrum? We start at low vision (20/70), run through legal blindness (20/70) down to hand motion (20/8000) and all the way to No Light Perception. And again, I will be critical of the article's wording. BLINDNESS IS NOT CATASTROPHIC. To compare it to having cancer is downright insulting.

The moral of my long story:

That article sucks. It has so many holes in it, that I can only begin to touch on them.

It's all about perspective, and ultimately, when people with a autism are spoken for (and have their own voices ignored) you end up with these gross misconceptions about the nature of autism, the potential of 'untreated' and 'cure free' autistics, and the very real and complete life we can lead. So, I speak for myself and I ask you to ignore those who speak for me.
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree with you more. Shows what can happen when an ignorant person feels qualified to speak for others.
 
Aleser said:
It's all about perspective, and ultimately, when people with a autism are spoken for (and have their own voices ignored) you end up with these gross misconceptions about the nature of autism, the potential of 'untreated' and 'cure free' autistics, and the very real and complete life we can lead. So, I speak for myself and I ask you to ignore those who speak for me.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that. Also Autistic children dont need to be put on drugs. Nobody does. They can simply be accepted as being differant. Allowed their little eccentricities. When I was growing up I felt too much concentration was put on making me act 'normal'. So now I act so 'normally' that it's hard to get anyone to believe I have Asperger syndrome at all.

I think that it would be better if Aspergers were incouraged to express themselves rather then just 'act normal'.
 
I've been listening to the radio program tonight. Several doctors, psychiatrists, special ed teachers, and parents have called in with their viewpoints and stories. Many of them agreed with Savage. Many told about the mis-diagnoses and the money influences.
 
Reba said:
I've been listening to the radio program tonight. Several doctors, psychiatrists, special ed teachers, and parents have called in with their viewpoints and stories. Many of them agreed with Savage. Many told about the mis-diagnoses and the money influences.
Click to expand...

Really? So what's the answer do u think?
 
Reba said:
I've been listening to the radio program tonight. Several doctors, psychiatrists, special ed teachers, and parents have called in with their viewpoints and stories. Many of them agreed with Savage. Many told about the mis-diagnoses and the money influences.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I should look into that and see if there are some professionals saying the same thing.
 
Reba said:
I've been listening to the radio program tonight. Several doctors, psychiatrists, special ed teachers, and parents have called in with their viewpoints and stories. Many of them agreed with Savage. Many told about the mis-diagnoses and the money influences.
Click to expand...

Really? :eek3:
 
Reba said:
From Savage's bio:

"Trained as a scientist, he holds Master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Epidemiology and Nutritional Science."

From his statement:

"Savage explained to the New York Times his use of the figure 99 percent was hyperbole."
Savage defends criticism of autism 'racket'
Click to expand...

Training obviously does not compensate for the ability to apply what one has learned. Nor does he hold any expertise int he field of neurology.

Likewise, there is a definitive set of criteria used to diagnose Autism and Autism Specrum Disorders. Perhaps he couldn't find it in one of his medical plant books, but it is in the DSM IV TR.

There are many more crierion that the individual must meet to receive a diagnosis of Autism Disorder than simply exhibiting behavioral manifestations. An evaluation for Autism is a collaboration between professionals. I honestly do not believe that a large percentage of individuals diagnosed with Autism Disorder simply have behavior problems, yet that is exactly what Savage implied when he stated they wer "brats."

No matter how many degrees the man holds, he was insensitive and offensive in his presentation.
 
Reba said:
I've been listening to the radio program tonight. Several doctors, psychiatrists, special ed teachers, and parents have called in with their viewpoints and stories. Many of them agreed with Savage. Many told about the mis-diagnoses and the money influences.
Click to expand...

Odd that it was a call in situation. Kind of protects them from putting their credentials on the line, doesn't it?
 
jillio said:
Odd that it was a call in situation. Kind of protects them from putting their credentials on the line, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Not "odd." Savage's program is a call-in talk radio show. Well, the professionals that were invited gave their full names and associations. The other callers never give their full names. Some were parents, so they wouldn't have professional "credentials."

I was in the car listening to the radio, so I couldn't write down the references. I remember one man was Dr. Camarata, Vanderbilt University, and one lady was named Wendy Fournier, President of the National Autism Association. She didn't agree 100 percent with Savage, but they did agree on several points. Her theory was that autism was the result of physical illness from inoculations. (I'm giving a very condensed version.)
 
Last edited:
Reba said:
Well, the professionals that were invited gave their full names and associations. The other callers never give their full names. Some were parents, so they wouldn't have professional "credentials."

I was in the car listening to the radio, so I couldn't write down the references. I remember one man was Dr. Camarata, and one lady was named Wendy from an autistic children support group. She gave her last name but I can't remember it. She didn't agree 100 percent with Savage, but they did agree on several points. Her theory was that autism was the result of physical illness from inoculations. (I'm giving a very condensed version.)
Click to expand...

Physical illness? Can a neuroligical illness be is considered physical?

Yea, I have been reading a lot about this theory about inoculations causing an increase in autism in children but it hasnt been proved.

I think that people are more educated about it hence more diagnosis making it look like there are more cases.

It is hard to say...
 
July 24, 2008
STATEMENT BY TALK RADIO NETWORK
ON MICHAEL SAVAGE'S AUTISM COMMENTS

There have been numerous calls in recent days for Michael Savage, who hosts "The Michael Savage Show" for Talk Radio Network (the "Network"), to be fired or suspended for his brief 84 seconds of commentary concerning autism during the July 16th broadcast of the Show.

Promptly after the Network's management learned of the comments in issue, the Network commenced an investigation into the particulars and the circumstances of those comments. This investigation began with the Network's CEO, Mark Masters, personally contacting Dr. Savage to address the concerns and obtain an explanation of the comments directly from Dr. Savage.

In that conversation, and other subsequent conversations between Mr. Masters and Dr. Savage, Dr. Savage explained the circumstances and intent of his statements in considerable detail. The Network also carefully monitored subsequent broadcasts of the Show, on Monday, July 21st and Tuesday, July 22nd, which were devoted to the subject of autism and further explanations by Dr. Savage of his views on the subject.

Dr. Savage has clarified that his July 16th statements concerning autism were not directed at those who are in fact challenged by this horrible affliction, but were instead addressing efforts to broaden the concept of autism beyond those who truly are autistic to a broader "autistic spectrum" of behavioral symptoms which are also manifested by persons who do not suffer from autism, and his concern that many children are being misdiagnosed as autistic due to the subjective nature of autism diagnosis (due to the lack of known biomedical indicators, such as blood tests, to definitively confirm or deny the actual existence of autism). Dr. Savage has also explained his belief that there have been efforts by certain professionals and professional organizations to expand diagnoses of autism more broadly, for various reasons, and his concern that this victimizes and stigmatizes children who are misdiagnosed as autistic. On multiple other occasions Dr. Savage has expressed his concerns that other conditions, such as ADD and ADHD, are overdiagnosed and result in improper medication of young children, which Dr. Savage regards as abusive.

In the context of his broader concerns, it is clear that Dr. Savage's comments were intended to suggest his opinion that, in the vast majority of cases, most children throwing tantrums, or refusing to communicate, are not autistic. Unfortunately, by condensing his multifaceted concerns into 84 seconds of commentary, the necessary context for his remarks was not apparent, and the few words he used to express his concerns were, in this instance, inartfully phrased.

As a result, Dr. Savage's comments did facially appear to be directed at children who suffer from autism, and clearly could be perceived as such. This has, in turn, caused understandable pain and distress to those who have a child or family member who is challenged by autism. This was not Dr. Savage's intent, and, on behalf of the Network and all persons associated with the Network, we wish to note that our hearts go out to all families who are forced to face the realities of autism every day of their lives, and to sincerely apologize to these families for any increase in these burdens resulting from inartful commentary appearing in the Network's programming.

While the phrasing of Dr. Savage's remarks was inartful, after the aforementioned investigation, as well as personal knowledge of Dr. Savage's strongly held views towards children and those dealing with special challenges, the Network is satisfied that he did not mean any disrespect to autistic children or their families but was instead reiterating his longstanding concerns on public health issues. Indeed, on these points, Mark Masters, the Network's CEO, notes that:

"I have known Michael Savage for nine years now. Over those nine years, we have had occasion to disagree on many issues. However, I have always respected Michael as a man of conviction, and I have noticed throughout our relationship that he has always been passionate and intense in his opposition to persons who he perceived to be disrespectful of persons dealing with special challenges.

I once asked him about his passion in this area, and he noted that it was because he had a brother who was disabled, but that he did not want to discuss it. Michael never shared any particulars on this with me until he shared with his audience on Monday that his brother never spoke during his lifetime, was institutionalized at 5 or 6 years old, and died in that institution in his 20's.

My observations of Michael's consistent opposition to what he viewed as abuse or disrespect of persons dealing with special challenges, and of his interest in children, as well as his 1982 book, Healing Children Naturally, are completely inconsistent with Michael attacking children who are truly autistic. In contrast, his belief that misdiagnosing children as autistic will damage those children who are misdiagnosed and stigmatize them for life, his aversion to what he sees as improper medication of young children, and subjecting them to a lifetime of chemical straight jackets, and his recent sharing of his belief that the medical profession failed to properly care for his brother prior to his brother's death, do explain his passion in challenging what he sees as improper efforts by some in the health care industry to brand and treat as autistic persons who are not."

In this context, for multiple reasons, the Network does not believe that it is appropriate to take adversarial action to suspend or terminate Dr. Savage for not phrasing his comments in this instance more carefully.

First, the Network recognizes, and those who are calling for action against Dr. Savage should recognize, that live talk radio is unscripted. Hosts do not read from prompters. Regardless of the abilities of any individual host, it is impossible to expect that hosts can in all instances avoid any instances of failure to provide full context and caveats for every statement made in three hours per day, five days per week, of a live talk program.

The Network also believes, as a policy matter, that it is not appropriate to censor the opinions of its hosts on legitimate issues. Neither the Network nor its management personnel agree with all positions asserted by all hosts on each of the Network's shows.

As a policy matter, the Network neither supports nor rejects individual policy statements asserted by its hosts. It does, however, support the rights of its hosts to express their views on public policy issues.

The purpose of talk radio is to raise the level of public discourse by introducing commentary on controversial issues. If the Network were to require hosts to refrain from stating views which others disagree with, or discipline hosts for holding unpopular views, its hosts would be intimidated from exercising their freedom of expression. Should this ever become the standard for talk radio, the interchange of ideas and debate which is the lifeblood of talk radio would be destroyed, and the freedom of expression which is a hallmark of American democracy would be eroded.

The Network is particularly concerned with respect to efforts to remove Dr. Savage from the airwaves by persons or organizations who disagree with his political views. In the case of the underlying July 16th autism clip comments now in issue, the Network must be cognizant of the fact that the initiation of a campaign to remove Dr. Savage from the air for those comments was instigated by Media Matters, an organization which regularly tapes broadcasts of The Michael Savage Show for the purpose of finding sound bites which could be used in an effort to remove him from the airwaves, for their own political ends.

In this case, the Network does believe that there has been an effort by Media Matters to take advantage of an inartful lapse on the part of Dr. Savage in failing to supply full context, caveats and explanations in the 84 seconds of comments at issue. While the Network and Dr. Savage regret any pain to families of autistic children as a result of inartfully phrased comments intended to enhance the welfare of children, it does appear to the Network that Media Matters and others now seek to cynically exploit this particular sound bite, out of context, to harness the pain of parents with truly autistic children, for their own self-serving agenda, in a broader political effort to remove a voice they politically disagree with from the airwaves.

In this context, the Network does question, if such efforts were to be successful with respect to Michael Savage, which other hosts will be the next targets. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, attempt by Media Matters to exploit any issue for their own self -serving political and social agenda.

Despite the concerns on the Network's part as to the motivations of Media Matters and other organizations which seek to remove those hosts they disagree with from the airwaves, and its belief that no action against Michael Savage is warranted under all applicable circumstances of this situation, the Network does want to take some positive action to address the fact that inartful statements concerning autism were made on one of its programs. As a result, the Network will begin broadcasting public service announcements with respect to legitimate autism issues, subject to spot availability, without charge, and will be encouraging other networks to do the same. In this regard, the Network invites organizations which would desire to submit public service announcements to forward them by email to PSA@TALKRADIONETWORK.com, or by mail to P.O. Box 3755, Central Point, OR 97502.

In contrast to the cynical efforts of Media Matters to manipulate 84 seconds of commentary out of context, for its own ends, the Network does believe that the issue is about the children. While the 84 seconds at issue has created intense controversy, the Network welcomes the opportunity to broaden the discussion on the important issues relating to autism, the "autism spectrum", the validity of autism diagnoses, and the ever-expanding drugging of America's children.

The Network commenced this discussion in the July 21st and 22nd broadcasts of The Michael Savage Show. For those who believe that the 84 seconds cited by Media Matters defines Michael Savage's views on autism, the Network recommends going to 20 audio clips of Michael Savage's comments on Autism. to view a representative sampling of Dr. Savage's views, as well as the applicable issues, in true context.
Click to expand...
Statement by Talk Radio Network
 
Sorry to say this but I do agree that there's too many autism diagnosis on children when I'm sure half of them don't even have it just need disclipine (spelling?) to control their behavior. Like one little kid I know he's 6 he have the worst temper he'll scream, hit people even strangers, being totally inappropiate in front of people like putting hand in pant and touch his private, so many things but their parents aren't doing anything at all to correct the behavior just sitting there watching or sit him down and say "sit over there and eat your food" didn't try say "please don't do that again or you get time out" but give the kid's sister bunch of crap and almost abusing her because she's normal but she's very good kid if he hit hr they'll yell at her and punish her for getting hit by him, because he have diagnosis of autism it makes me sick watching falsely autistic kids getting away with crap and not getting any disclipines (again sorry about spelling)
 
Reba said:
Yes, really. I don't make up stuff.
Click to expand...

Why have you assume that I think you made up stuff when I am not only one who use those word "really" with surprise reaction over your post?

Did I demand source from you to support your claim ?
 
Reba said:
Not "odd." Savage's program is a call-in talk radio show. Well, the professionals that were invited gave their full names and associations. The other callers never give their full names. Some were parents, so they wouldn't have professional "credentials."

I was in the car listening to the radio, so I couldn't write down the references. I remember one man was Dr. Camarata, Vanderbilt University, and one lady was named Wendy Fournier, President of the National Autism Association. She didn't agree 100 percent with Savage, but they did agree on several points. Her theory was that autism was the result of physical illness from inoculations. (I'm giving a very condensed version.)
Click to expand...

The theory that audtism is caused from innoculations has pretty much been debunked. Thee are those that hang ontothat unreasonable explanation despite that fact. I will definately check on Dr. Camarata from Vanderbilt. I have a good friend that practices pediatric neurology there.

Still and all, Savage was insensitive and over the top in his statements.
 
Back
Top