Are Cure and “Eradication” Not the Only Goal?
There’s talk about curing and preventing autism, but is this really possible? Is it where all the funds raised in the name of “autism research” should be directed? What about focusing on helping those who already have autism—on autistic persons now and today?
Compare a recent discussion about eradicating malaria. Maybe eradiction isn’t the right aim to direct research efforts towards, experts about the disease note in an article in the March 4th New York Times. Are scientists feeling they have to talk about “eradicating” malaria—which Bill and Melinda Gates called for last year—-although funds might be rather spent in keeping numbers down and managing the disease?
Tags: asd, asperger, autism, bill melissa gates foundation, cure, eradication, malaria, Parenting, pdd-nos, world healthDr. Arata Kochi, the W.H.O. malaria chief, went further than other skeptics, arguing that the specter of eradication is counterproductive. With enough money, he said, current tools like nets, medicines and DDT could drive down malaria cases 90 percent.
…..
Dr. Awash Teklehaimanot, director of the malaria program at the Earth Institute of Columbia University, said he worried that calls for eradication raised expectations too high, inviting frustration and a loss of political will.
“Maybe 10, 15 years from now, we should consider this,” he said.
This debate occurs more in the hallways of malaria conferences than in public, because some scientists fear that a zeal for eradication is now compulsory.
Dr. [Regina] Rabinovich [head of infectious disease at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation] denied that, saying foundation decisions were not based “on whether or not people agree with public statements made by Bill and Melinda.”
%
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Health
5 opinions for Are Cure and “Eradication” Not the Only Goal?
dkmnow
Mar 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Dealing properly with threats to public health is necessary, of course. But these days, I’m mostly interested in eradicating disaster capitalism, especially that which seeks to manufacture consent in order to cash in on manufactured “epidemics.” Environmental issues aside, if there is any greater threat to humanity today, I can’t imagine what it could be.
Regan
Mar 5, 2008 at 4:20 pm
We are very dichotomous thinkers
This OR That.
Why not both? In the case of Malaria, it would seems that in-line management is in step with long term eradication. The problem is making the solution sound as if it is around the corner so why bother with the investment in current infrastructure. In disease management, a miss is as good as a mile.
A lot of research on what autism “is”, and treatment is heating up, but it still seems far away from defined practical application, esp. in reference to such as “cure”. In the meantime, Eleanor’s not going into the deep freeze, nor should she. She’s a wonderful person with a difference who could contribute a lot and is capable of participating a lot if the right structures and the right attitudes are in place. Perhaps the campaign for a “cure” is a reflection that we know that neither the structures nor the attitudes are there and so it needs to be staked on fixing the person.
dkmnow
Mar 5, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“dichotomous” love it!
I once used “Dichotomism Never Sleeps” as title for a psych paper. The professor scoffed, “Is that a word?”
I said, “It is now!” XD
The savage irony is that “black-and-white thinking” is routinely cited as a symptom of mental illness — except when exhibited by someone in a position of authority. And if you fail to warmly embrace the pet dichotomies of a “mental health” professional, your case file will soon bear such phrases as “distracted by contextualism,” or “ambivalent about right and wrong,” or the time-honored classic, “problems with authority.”
In such settings, “mental health” often proves to be the measure of one’s ability to convincingly pander to the personal biases of those in power.
[/tangent]
Kristina Chew, PhD
Mar 5, 2008 at 8:02 pm
One point that the article made that I found interesting: The scientists who were not in favor of the “eradicating malaria” strategy were very aware of how cultural, political, and “people factors” affect the outcomes of a plan. They noted the difficulties of getting different nations (who are at war with each other and/or not on friendly terms) all to follow the same program.
RAJ
Mar 6, 2008 at 8:32 am
Prevention is already in place in a number of factors that cause or contribute to ‘autism’. The first prevention intervention developed was testing newborns for Phenylketonuria. A positive test and placing the newborn on a phenylalinine free diet has substantially reduced the rate of neuropsychiatric conditions, including autism, caused by the disruption in brain development associated with untreated PKU.
Ther are a number of medications which a fetus would have been exposed to prenatally that can can easily result in prevention. Thalidomide, prenatal exposure to anti-convulsant drugs have benn associated with increased risk for ‘autism’ and certainly the banning of Thalidomide and the reduced use of anti-convulsant drugs have resulted in prevention.
Introduction of a rubella vaccine has also resulted in the elimination of rubella autism.
Prevention is possible, is proven, and should be vigorously pursued.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: