Warning: this is not going to be coherent. (Although, if you’ve read any of my posts, that won’t surprise you). This is a stream of consciousness, not edited, not thought-out, not planned. Just thoughts spewing out.

I was told about a woman who wrote a book called Autism: Pathways to Recovery. I was immediately apprehensive, because anytime the words “autism” and “recovery” are in the same sentence, my heart starts to beat a little bit faster. I glanced through the book, and I do like some of this woman’s thoughts. Being the daughter of a well-known, truly incredible (not just saying that….really) naturopathic/homeopathic doctor, who has helped countless people with various physical and mental conditions, by treating the whole person, the underlying causes, the deeper issues within the system, I do firmly believe in naturopathy. I also do believe that autism is a genetic/environmental interaction. Maybe some people are wired for autism and don’t present as autistic, maybe some are wired for autism and with toxins and environmental substances and issues, they do present with autistic behaviors. I think that’s part of it, and I also think there’s part we don’t know, and I also think that it’s more important to help promote autism acceptance and support rather than harping on a specific gene that may or may not cause autism. HOWEVER. I do not believe that every person’s autism is caused by environmental toxins. I do not believe that autism is something that can all of a sudden “disappear” with the right treatment. Yes, I think that there are some people (because I know of some) who do have a better quality of life with diet modifications, reducing inflammation, healing the digestive system, and treating various bacterial overgrowths. But doesn’t anyone?! I mean – my quality of life is better now that my digestive system is healing. Most people feel better when they stop eating refined sugars and genetically modified foods. So, yes, of course, autistic individuals will also have some improvement in their quality of life when those modifications are made. But there is a BIG difference between improving quality of life, and recovering from a disease. Autism is not a disease.

I know some may disagree. I know some see autistic individuals, particularly those who are completely unable to care for themselves, who can’t speak, struggle to communicate, hurt themselves, and think that autism is an awful affliction. And, I understand that. And, I understand that we need to do everything we can to make their lives as full of life as possible, whatever that means for each individual.

But it’s so dangerous when we start talking about autism as a disease, as something we need to recover from. And that’s what this author does. Over and over, she promises recovery, she promises that children will get the chance to get better, to recover, to be free from this condition. And that’s not fair to all of the autistic individuals out there. Autism is a part of them. It’s not a disease. We can’t equate autism to cancer, to depression, to Alzheimer’s. I think of my students with autism. Their lives are hard. I’m not denying that. These issues are not mutually exclusive. It’s not a “but”, it’s an “and”. It is hard to be autistic. AND, it’s not something we need to “save” our kids from. Autism is a part of who they are – if we took away the autism from them, I don’t know who they would be. They’d lose their personality, their characteristics, their amazing quirks and brilliant insights. They wouldn’t be themselves.

I stopped reading when the author wrote, “I will not give up until every child is given the chance to recover; until all of the
pieces of the puzzle fit together, and this chronic condition no longer threatens the next generation.” I was then fuming, and immediately started typing this blog post.

I have no doubt that this author is a brilliant doctor. I firmly believe, even without knowing her, that she means well. That she works hard. That she comes from a place of caring. That she has good insights. That she’s done years of research. That her research is substantiated. That she is a research-based doctor, not a clinical doctor. That that makes a difference.

But there’s danger in only seeing her side.

(I’m not even going back and re-reading what I wrote, because it’s likely so disorganized that it makes no sense, and I probably omitted key points and facts and I will likely get a lot of flack for it, but that’s okay, so here we go, posting it now. Please share your thoughts – I am certainly no expert, nor am I coherently expressing my thoughts, and I would love to hear what you think, whether you angrily disagree with what I wrote or whether some of it resonated with you. I’m all about the stream of consciousness)