Blogroll: sWell
8 Comments Published by Autism Library October 12th, 2008 in autism, other blogs, press reports, vaccinesI started this blog by doing some pieces on blogs I’ve liked–as I’ve added them to the blogroll, I gave a description of why. I haven’t done it in a while, but I’ve got a lot of blogs I’d like to add.
This addition is sWell, written by Dr. Rahul Parikh. Dr. Parikh is a pediatrician with Kaiser Permanente, an HMO. He is based in Walnut Creek–about 40 miles east (and a little north) of San Francisco. Think Berkeley, go east over the hills, and you are in Walnut Creek.
sWell isn’t all about autism (and that’s a good thing!). But, Dr. Parikh has a fairly long history of taking on the tough questions about autism in the press and on blogs. He’s been a commenter on David Kirby’s Huffington Post blog posts. But, his activity with autism goes back farther than that. He’s been a semi-regular in San Francisco Bay Area news papers, often correcting statements made by Rick Rollens.
Here’s a few examples of his blogging:
McCarthyism (on, no surprise, Jenny McCarthy)
Deconstructing David Kirby, where he looks at David Kirby’s briefing in Washington D.C.
David Kirby Smacks Me Down, where he responds to a blog post David Kirby did on Dr. Parikh.
David Kirby was “smacking down” Dr. Parikh based on Dr. Parikh’s review of Paul Offit’s book, Autism’s False Prophets.
He also writes “Vital Signs” for Salon (here’s an example, non-autism column there), with many varied subjects. One that has the attention of the autism community is What the Poling autism case means.
As noted above, Dr. Parikh has taken on medical issues, including autism, in the press. In the San Francisco Chronicle, he has taken on issues such as using the internet for medical advice (Beware Dr. Google), obesity, and, well, autism. One article, The Truth About Autism, takes on issues such as vaccines and the “epidemic”. You can imagine with a title talking about “the Truth” about autism, while taking on these firmly held beliefs of some, he was not popular amongst the vocal constituents of the autism community in California. He has in the press also discussed parents who show up to doctor visits with their binders of papers in hopes of educating doctors with “The Truth”. To the groups of parents with binders of papers, filled most likely with papers from the journals “Medical Hypotheses” and “Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeous” and others written by the likes of Mark and David Geier, Dr. Parikh is, again, not popular.
But, science and medicine are not popularity contests. In a doctor/patient relationship, the doctor should be the expert. Patients should educate themselves, but, in the end, typically only the doctor went to medical school. Doctors should be open minded. But, so should patients (and their parents). If someone shows up at a doctor’s office with a binder of papers, the patient should accept the fact that some journals are not very good, and some research is just plain bad.
What Dr. Parikh is doing is not popular amongst the vocal segments of the autism community. But, it’s important. I thank Dr. Parikh and I wish there were more like him.
“Much of the news in the autism community is closely tied to current research.”
The above was from your about tab. I don’t agree with this. While it is important to debunk quackery in “autism research”, that is not the main news in the “autism community”. The main news, if you did a google search is the abuse of autistic children in schools, the lack of inclusion and opportunity, the marginalization of autistic adults in employment, housing and life in general. Autism research is not very significant to autistic lives.
CS:
You are correct. I should have put “news” in quotes or used the word “discussion”.
I don’t think, however, that much of the real news is about adult issues. This is a problem. Autism is seen as a childhood disorder, and too much of the information quoted pretends like there are few or no adults.
I hope that adult issues were prominent in the responses to the IACC. They are a vastly under-explored area. They don’t have the glamor of autism causation and prevention, but they are critically important to what is likely the majority of people with autism.
“I don’t think, however, that much of the real news is about adult issues.”
“real news” I guess would depend on your perspective. If you are an adult autistic, you might think the real news is about adults. However, as someone that straddles the line between autistic adult and autistic parent, I can say that real news to me is both about adults and children, with neither more important than the other but equally important.
“I hope that adult issues were prominent in the responses to the IACC. They are a vastly under-explored area.” We could as a collective body (The Autism Hub) change that (vastly under-explored area) if we stop putting so much emphasis on childhood issues like vaccines, couldn’t we?
For me, when I said “real news” I was thinking news carried by recognized news outlets. I wasn’t thinking about blogs or the discussions within the community. So where, say, Dr. Mandell’s study of adults with autistic features in hospital settings, that might have been “news” to some who discussed it. However, it wasn’t carried by newspapers or TV or the like.
It is an interesting question of how to balance the discussion–vaccines vs. real issues. One the one hand, the autism discussion is being dominated by the vaccine notion already. It can be argued that someone has to counter the discussion. On the other hand, this takes away from the real issues of autism, and, in some ways, gives more “air time” to the vaccine notion.
I think people need to have some of the activism of the vaccine crowd–make voices heard. I hope people did that with the IACC and with future similar opportunities.
“For me, when I said “real news” I was thinking news carried by recognized news outlets. I wasn’t thinking about blogs or the discussions within the community.”
I’m referencing the same news. There are lots of stories in the major media, but little of it has to do with vaccines.
“On the one hand, the autism discussion is being dominated by the vaccine notion already.”
The above would depend on what you chose to read, not on any specific reality.
“It can be argued that someone has to counter the discussion.” Lots of autistic people are doing just that, but you won’t find that in “False Prophets” or other science related news and blogs. I’m coming out with my own review of False Prophets, and needless to say, its not as glowing as other’s reviews whom are concerned only with vaccines.
“I think people need to have some of the activism of the vaccine crowd–make voices heard.” Perhaps, but I think the vaccine crowd should listen to autistic people first, and very few of us are talking about vaccines. That’s a childhood issue, with little relevance to the lifelong issues faced by autistics.
This is typical of what lands in my mailbox several times a day:
http://tinyurl.com/4btude
Perhaps I do see too much of the news pertaining to vaccines. A quick look at Google News right now shows no vaccine stories on the first page in a search on autism
However, in the related searches links, they show:
That said, you prompted me to comment on something that’s been in my inbox.
http://autismlibrary.org/blog/parents-report-possible-therapist-fraud/
However, in the related searches links, they show:
Searches related to: autism
thimerosal preservative karen mccarron
measles awareness michael savage
I’m not surprised, that’s all that people care about it seems because those were search results showing the most popular searches. The hardscrabble life of autistics doesn’t seem to interest anyone. Wouldn’t it have been nice if those search links showed: inclusion, opportunity, appropriate educational/vocational services etc.?