AIMS 2 Trials

There is an article via the link below at The Establishment - a site run and funded by women - expressing concerns about the AIMS 2 Trials. A research programme costing €115 million.

https://theestablishment.co/why-a-european-autism-research-program-has-sparked-fears-of-eugenics/

For further info see: https://participatoryautismresearch.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/autism-innovative-medicine-studies-2-trials-project-faq/comment-page-1/#comment-504

https://plus.google.com/102541846424077519652/posts/PW6Q1kVbMz1

I have mentioned this research before but it was some time ago now. The main concern/suspicion is that, given some of the participants - such as Autism Speaks - the trial will attempt to discover a bio-marker that will result in abortions/eugenics. Given the way advances in science progress rapidly, I think these type of trials are an unethical waste of much needed research money.

  • Dame Shirley is involved. She decribed it as "...the active role UK researchers are playing in a global epidemiological network...".

    A very odd statement. Has a disease broken out we aren't aware of?

    I've read some odd comments from Dame Shirley, about her own child no less. She said she wanted to "kill her own child". Literally.

    This guy explains the road to AIMS, the people involved, and some very strange factual stuff. He includes a lot of links to back it up. It's all written very well too.

    It's worth a read, just to see how the establishment are viewing autism.

    https://www.theautisticadvocate.com/2017/11/autism-speaks-and-its-influence-on-uk.html

    This guy exposes a lot of people. Pretty eye-opening.

  • Unbelievable, how can these people do this, surely that money would be better spent on services that autistic people want? Or education of others to stop them from trying to change autistics to fit society. 

    I can see a benefit of helping conditions like epilepsy that quite often are associated with autism but the idea of developing screening during pregnancy is to me wrong .I know we screen for downs syndrome but that is a combined test for 2 others that inevitably cause fatality. I had this test during 3 of my pregnancies but had made the decision I would not do anything with the results apart from prepare myself (negative anyway) I know in Iceland a positive leads to termination which is wrong. I feel this trial is encouraging that idea which is just wrong 

  • What disturbs me about this research programme, at a fundamental level, is the arrogance of the scientists and organisations involved. Both genetic science and neuroscience are disciplines that are still in their infancy. As a result of this any ’treatments’ resulting or conclusions made will likely be ill advised and incomplete respectively.
    I am very interested in neuroscience and genetics. I think they will prove to be of great benefit to mankind in the long run. However, I am unsure as to how autism will benefit from this research. The autism industry probably will. The vast majority of higher functioning individuals are not of the opinion that they need ‘fixing’, some understanding and appropriate assistance would be welcome. Lower functioning individuals have no agency, particularly the children. In the past pharmaceutical companies have been criticised for carrying out trials in places like Africa. Now I fear that lower functioning kids will be considered a convenient group for trials with new drugs and genetic intervention techniques. There is also the possible eugenics question that will result.
    Consider how psychology has treated - and continues to treat - these children. ABA is still practised by mainstream charities and organisations, even though the harmful long term effects of this ‘therapy’ are well documented. The response has been to tweak the method, not abandon it. ABA has the efficacy and ethics of a Chinese re-education programme. These children suffer enough from quack remedies with no clear regulatory framework in position. Placing them at the forefront of genetic and pharmaceutical research is disquieting. I also think that any research that is partly or wholly funded by tax payers should not involve the practise of redaction of any documents.
    Mainstream psychology still persists with the modular account of account of autism - Theory of Mind, Executive function, Interoception and repetitive behaviour - even though these theories have made no impact on the high incidence of suicide and co-morbidities. What other medical discipline would be able to attract research funding without being able to demonstrate efficacy?
    Other - in my opinion more supportable - theories are available. For research to be credible, surely the opinions of those of us with autistic brains and genes should not be so arrogantly sidelined.