My autismcauses.info website is intended to be about the science, but some readers will inevitably start speculating what are my thoughts and attitudes to the various personae involved in the autism disputations world. So in moments when I'm not up to doing anything better, I'll make a start on presenting here my view of some of the principal actors in this very much drama of our times.
First I should say that I see three entrenched camps into which many or even most researchers or campaigners fit. That is (1) the autism-pride /neurodiversity people who claim autism cannot be a problem so cannot need any therapy or cure; (2) those who are convinced that the autism increase has been caused by vaccines in one way or another; and (3) the medical corporate establishment who have long denied there was an increase, and while that position has started to fracture, now still deny that mercury had anything to do with it, or that chelation could help to remedy it.
My involvement in autism research pre-dates all those factions, and sadly I have to disagree with all of them. It would be so nice to have a group of like-minders among whom I could enjoy mutual admiration sessions (and obviously more). But as befits a rare first-rank scientist, my mind is driven less by social conformities and more by the unrelenting truth. Well, at least, for better or worse I've had more than sufficient hardening to situations of standing alone for my views.
I should also point out that I hold a peculiarly superior position from which to view the other participants in this drama. That's because I have absolutely zero personal interest or investment in it other than just one thing. Namely my 1993-published theory paper, and the fact that I have some seriously brilliant ideas to follow on from it. I'll clarify this a bit further.
The only hand I have in this game is my ideas and inferences, such as those I expressed decades ago in my 1993-published theory paper. Unlike others involved in science, a person who is only a theorist is in the unusual position that all his cards are displayed on the table of published papers. I have no privileged access to information that is not also available to all the principal actors supporting those other positions (or none). Everyone can see for themselves my ideas and the evidence and reasoning I advance to support them. If I am to have any credibility, it depends not on any authoritarian status labels, nor on any assertions of special expertise I make, but only on such truthfulness, soundness and unbiased objectivity as may be contained in my writings. If I err from the path of such truthfulness, soundness and unbiased objectivity, then I will quite certainly be torn to pieces by the plentiful supply of those who preoccupy themselves with making a professional art of such hostilities. It follows that my only hope of gaining anything personally from the autism-causes drama is in confining myself to careful competent honest work under a constant guard of self-criticism. Only thereby I can hope that the praise that was bestowed on my ideas by Rimland (r.i.p). and by Eysenck (r.i.p) will one day be bestowed by others too.
So if my ideas have been mistaken in some way, my only way forward will be to recognise my error and move on to a better understanding. What possible point could there be in my doing otherwise?!
Continuing this preface, I now turn to the widespread assertions that one faction is telling the truth, while another faction is engaged in deliberate criminal deceits. I shall shortly explain why I find at least some of the actors to be indeed unworthy in both methods and aims. But first it should be made clear that just about all non-first-rank scientists (and others) make substantial mistakes, and for instance delude themselves there is a conclusive proof where there is nothing of the sort, or forget information that doesn't fit their preconceptions. In this context, many people insist on making a false inference that person A states so many things that are obviously untrue, and commits such idiotic logical errors, that it follows that they must be engaged on a crooked mission of deceit. I reject, as a general rule, this false inference for the following reason.
Many people pigheadedly maintain and advance viewpoints in gross defiance of evidence, and do so even though they have, at least initially, no possible corrupting motive for so doing. For instance, there are innumerable people who will reveal to you as some stupendous proven conspiracy, that the WTC7 building "fell down in its own footprint", and did so even though there was no honest reason for it to do so. They'll show you certain videos as supposed proof that Silverstein personally arranged for WTC7 to be a "controlled demolition" job.
And yet you can easily find on the web the ample proof that WTC7 was extremely damaged by a huge fragment of WTC1 or 2, and that it was subject to enormous uncontrolled fires, and that it didn't fall into its own footprint anyway. And further that arranging a controlled demolition takes weeks of preparation that would be impossible to conduct secretly in a functioning building. And it didn't resemble a controlled demolition anyway (and I could go on and on here!!!).
But if you try pointing this information out to these muddled people you won't find them calling you back to thank you for showing them the error of their ways!