Naked Savage

It's getting to be a depressingly familiar scenario. Some high-profile person makes a somewhat "edgy" statement. The media and their favored presidential candidates erupt in outrage. The high-profile person is reduced to a mendicant state, crawling and shuffling at the feet of the powers that be (i.e., the media) and begging forgiveness for their sins, which are great and many. Then the storm passes, and said mendicant might actually wind up "rehabilitated" -- in the words of the Cultural Revolution -- even if perpetually included on the media "watch list". Thus does "the freest society on earth" enforce, with brutal effiency and virtual omniscience, the standards of the regime for what is acceptable discourse and what is not.

The most recent personality to venture beyond the pale in this regard -- although at this moment he is hanging tough, unlike Don Imus, who offered his own testicles up on a silver platter -- is Michael Savage, whose business -- like that of Howard Stern and (formerly) Don Imus -- is, explicitly, to offend and "shake up" the establishment. But when they go too far, they have some answering to do, according to our free speech codes. In this case, Savage's offense was to refer to autism as a "fraud" and a "racket". Now, as usual in these cases, the media and various interest groups erupt in indignation. But does it ever occur to anyone to examine the issue and see if there is, just maybe, the slightest bit of truth to the allegation? I've already discussed this phenomenon with regard to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's critique of the American approach to the race issue. Yeah, he's a demagogue and an extremist, but damn, he makes some points that are hard to argue against.

So what is this "autism is a fraud and a racket" business? Well, consider: Autism diagnoses have increased at an astronomical rate over the last few years. Is this because we are experiencing a plague of autism? Some people would say yes, and attribute this to mercury in vaccines, and other environmental toxins. But it's equally possible that the condition has been over-diagnosed, the way AIDS in Africa seems to be. Over-diagnosis is a relatively straightforward phenomenon. What is means is that instead of a fairly narrow band of clinical indicators, someone (in the AMA, or HHS, e.g.) decides that the problem is much more widespread than we think, and that the definition of what constitutes the problem, or syndrome, or disease, has to be broadened to include "gray area" cases or (formerly) subclinical cases. And what, pray tell, is the motive for this? Simply put -- empire building. If your agency is in charge of monitoring, and researching, Disease X, you're going to get a whole lot more money and power if, all of a sudden, the incidence of Disease X increases five to tenfold. So you get a bunch of M.D.'s to sign on to the notion that the condition is grossly underdiagnosed, and that it actually includes a broad "spectrum" of conditions (that word "spectrum" is especially useful in this regard), and shazam, all of sudden you're riding a tiger (budget-wise, at least).

So yes, in this respect _any_ disease, ailment, or condition can easily become a "racket". The "racket" part is simply the degree to which pronouncements as to the incidence, and severity, of the disease exceed the actual facts of the matter, not because of honest errors in diagnosis but because of empire building. But it autism a "fraud"? Well, there is certainly a genuine condition involved -- I've seen cases first-hand. I have no doubt that there is a "thing" -- a condition -- neurological, emotional, what have you -- and that that condition can be objectively defined and, hopefully, treated or at least managed. ("Prevented" is another issue.) Up until recently, this genuine condition was referred to as "autism". But now, because of the ample supply of taxpayer money going to autism as well as many other ailments, many people have jumped on the autism bandwagon who probably shouldn't be there. All of a sudden, any kid who hasn't already been diagnosed as "hyperactive" or "ADHD", or who is not visibly handicapped in some other respect, is labeled "autistic", or at least as belonging on the "autism spectrum". This is not only a scam when it comes to downloading big bucks from the government -- it's also a power play on the part of the medical establishment and, yes, the public schools. And beyond all this, it's a political ploy designed to, ultimately, declare everyone in the U.S. "sick" and thus in need of help -- i.e. collectivism and socialism, run by a liberal elite. (Why do you think Hillary Clinton's "health care" conferences were classified Top Secret? Call it the "sickening of America" -- or, turning us into a nation of hypochondriacs all of whom need help, 24-7, from the liberal health establishment -- which, ultimately, gets to say who lives and who dies -- and don't tell me that wasn't very much on Hillary's mind.)

So yes, the grain of truth in Savage's statement is that "autism" -- the classification, not the disease -- has become, to a significant degree, a fraud, and the autism industry is, by and large, a racket, the same way the AIDS industry, the cancer industry, and the ADHD industry are. If it weren't for the fact that the government suffers a hemorrhage of funds every time someone declares a new health crisis, these things would be approached on a more reasonable, proportionate level. But as it is, there is plenty to be made by declaring a perpetual crisis, so a perpetual crisis is what we have.

Too bad we have to have "shock jocks" and abrasive radio hosts blow the cover on issues like this, since our politicians and public policy wonks are either too sold out or too cowardly to do so. But hey, better this than nothing. As Scripture has it, "If I do not speak, the rocks will cry out."