Just some more random thinking on PR and what I want to do one day

It's been a bit of a dilemma for me these past few years, being torn between being proud of who I am, being happy to do speeches and such at conferences, or even give interviews in the paper, and worrying about a general public, including employers who know little about autism save for what they read in the papers (and we all know how the media portrays autism, don't we?).

Most of the problem for me is what I call the "bad PR" or "bad press" about autism. Sure, it's hard for families, and even harder for those of us on the spectrum, but the negative words used with autism "destroyer of families", "epidemic", "fate worse than death", "abductor of children", "disease", "behavioural problem" don't make it any easier for us to get ahead if we can and want to!

There are two major ways to make money providing goods or services in this world:

1. Provide a product or service that people need or want really bad and they will buy it, or buy into it. The trick is to gear it at the people, making it look that like they absolutely need this product or service. (Look at things like ABA - they say it's 'medically necessary' and make tons of money off of parents who are not medical professionals and are usually facing the facts about autism for the first time making them very vulnerable!)

2. If the people do not directly need your service, but you need to raise money to provide it to those you think do need it (non-profit societies mostly), then you need to target the public where it hurts: their emotions.

You need to make whatever you're raising money for look so bad that people will feel sorry and throw money your way. You need to use words that trigger emotions like "devastating", "tragic", "epidemic", "terrible disease" and "fate worse than death".

You need to paint a bleak picture for the public and then make it look like you have the answer or the cure. It will certainly make you money, but what of those you are targeting your service at? What sort of picture are you painting for those who may not need your services as much but get painted in the same negative way? In this case, autistics who are able to live independently and work? How easy is it going to be for them to live their independent life and work their meaningful career with that sort of negativity being spread around?

Not all of us are unable to work. Not all of us need extra services or funding, yet we still fall into the same category and have to live with working twice as hard to prove that "we're not all like the people the societies and parents are portraying".

I am more than able to work and I enjoy doing it. I'd go nuts if I couldn't work! I've been doing it since I was 13 and I will work for as long as I can. With the shadow of the negative press hanging over me, that makes it hard me to get ahead. Instead, I've had to prove myself. This I've done with things like Toastmasters, serving in leadership roles and just proving myself worthy at work.

What sucks is that I've had to work way harder than my coworkers to do this because there's the "pretending to be normal" factor, plus having to work twice as hard to prove that I am more than capable to do my job and work my way up to middle management. I work best in middle management, because I have more control over my situation and do what I do best, which is helping other people do their best and get ahead. I don't like being someone's grunt.

It is, of course, against the law in most countries to deny someone work based on a "disability" of any sort. However, most employers circumvent that by just not calling you for an interview in the first place if they know you are disabled.

In my case, I changed my first and last name and have an excellent resume. Now, I don't get equated with the "A" word when looking for work, and this has helped immensely.

Eventually, I will have earned the appropriate degrees (I'm in University now) to start up a practice as a psychologist and provide the one service that seems to be seriously lacking: service to teenagers and adults on the autistic spectrum who have spent a lifetime being told how defective, tragic and worthless they are.

I want to be able to provide a diagnosis to those who need it; provide counseling or coaching with a strictly autistic focus (rather than trying to use NT counseling tactics, which is pointless to say the least); help get the right services for someone who is having hard time getting them, etc.

I don't want to cure anyone or force them to pretend to be normal like other "therapists" and such have done in the past; but I do want to help people find value in their lives, work with whatever is bothering them and help them create the life they want or need for themselves on their own terms. I would like to see people going out in the world, knowing and accepting who they are and succeeding in the way they consider success anyway.

I want to help heal the damage done by most childhood therapies and help people empower themselves so they can at least have as happy an adulthood as they can. All people should have happiness in their lives, and be able to access that happiness.

No person should ever grow up feeling worthless, or want to kill themselves because they've been led to believe they are defective their whole lives. I've been there. I've wished there was someone who could provide this sort of service to me.

I may be completely off base, but I see a need and I want to fill it. We'll see where life takes me in that regard.

That is my dream for a meaningful career.

A "Life Without Autism" - would you be willing to kill for it?

Karen McCarron was willing to and she did...

Before I continue on with this piece, I would warn those who are easily disturbed or do not want to see the dark side of parenting an autistic child to stop reading right now.

I believe in balance and believe strongly in pursuing and speaking the "truth against the world". Sometimes the truth hurts, but it needs to be seen.

Not many truths hurt more than the truth that there is a hatred felt by parents out there...a hate that can and has driven some to kill.

To see a list of autistic people killed at the hands of their caregivers of all sorts, please visit this website http://www.geocities.com/growingjoel/murder.html for their names and stories. The site has not been updated lately, but it is still a good resource.

According to this news article (Posted in full at the end of this post) http://www.pjstar.com/php/index.php?/news/pekin_mother_wants_videotaped_confession_suppressed/,
Karen was drivin to suffocate her autistic daughter, Katie, because Katie was "detached" (mentally disconnected). Katie was a "tough nut to crack" and Karen had thought about killing her on previous occasions.

Karen killed her daughter on May 13, 2006 by suffocating her with a plastic bag.

Her one main reason to kill an innocent child who did not ask to be born autistic?

Karen wanted "a life without autism". No thought was given to what her daughter thought about being autistic. Karen did not want autism in her life anymore and she got rid of it through the killing of her daughter.

Selfishness aside, there are other ways to dispose of a troublesome child, autistic or otherwise, that do not involve murder. Is troublesome a disturbing word? Sure it is...but it's the truth.

I appreciate that parenting a child with a disability - any disability - can be a trying experience. I've been on both sides of the fence: the disabled person and the caregiver.

For almost 7 years, I worked with people of all ages and levels of ability/disability when I worked as a home care and child care provider. I know that disabilities are a trying experience for all.

I am autistic myself and know that it was no picnic for my parents or me while was growing up.However, when a parent or caregiver starts thinking infanticide, it's time to look at other options...like removing the child from the care of that person.

If this woman wanted a "life without autism", then perhaps she should have considered giving Katie up for adoption or arranging with family to have someone else willing to take over Katie's care.

Was this thought of? Was this considered?

Who's to say? Friends and relatives reported that she was always crying and such.

I remember a woman I lived with who wanted to kill her child. For months this went on until I finally got fed up and said "Why don't you just call social services and give the child up?"

I got lambasted hardcore for that (called a childhater) and I was left asking the question:"Would people rather kill their children then give them up and just admit that they cannot look after them?"

What makes this story even more interesting is that Karen McCarron is a doctor (a pathologist)...oh yes, a MD who's just had her license stripped indefinitely. http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/07/01/09/010907ilmccarron.htm

A doctor who likely swore the Hippocratic Oath on the day she was given that MD. A doctor who swore that most ancient sacred vow to "First, do no harm".

A doctor who killed her own disabled child and said she was doing it to "end their pain".

A doctor who has pleaded "Not Guilty" to two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of obstructing justice and one count of concealment of a homicidal death. "Not Guilty" to charges that could see her in jail for 100 years if she is convicted.

I would seriously like to know what her professional position on euthanasia is. Well, one could argue that, because she killed her daughter, she must be pro-euthanasia. That is not the case with many NT's, however. Perhaps she might be dead against (pardon the pun) euthanasia in the cases of ALS, painful diseases, terminal cancers, etc.

How can a crime like this be excused? Is it ok to kill autistic children because they're "hard nut[s] to crack"?

On the day after Katie McCarron died, May 14, 2006 (Mother's Day - how ironic is that?), a couple locked their 19 year old autistic son, Christopher DeGroot, in their apartment and set the place on fire. This did not kill him, however. He was airlifted to a hospital where he lingered for awhile in great pain due to the burns and then died 5 days later.

My in-laws lost their 16 year old son last year in a car accident. They are still devastated. Another mother I know lost her child to suicide many years ago and she will never truly heal from that wound.

The death of a child is devastating to say the least.

How could a parent kill a child of their own?

I will never know this, but it is an interesting question.

More articles as well as memorial pages for Katie can be found here: http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2006/05/why_the_autism_.html

Of course, I only heard about this today, so I've missed getting this on the Autism Hub.

Perhaps it is fate that I have found out about this and am bringing it up again? Perhaps there's a reason?

Regardless, no matter what day of the year, things like should not be forgotten, swept under the carpet or ignored.

The truth needs to be put out to the world. People need to know what the bad press autism gets does to people.

To all of the autistics and other people killed because of their difference: rest in peace.


PEKIN: Mother wants videotaped confession suppressed

By KAREN McDONALD of the Journal Star

PEKIN - The Morton mother accused of suffocating her 3-year-old autistic daughter had thoughts about killing the child before - she said she “wanted a life without autism,” according her videotaped hospital room confession.

“It seems that everything I tried to do didn’t help her. She was a tough nut to crack,” Karen McCarron said on the tape. “I didn’t know what to do . . . she was not learning at a rate I would expect . . .”

McCarron went on to tell Morton police Katherine “Katie” McCarron was “detached,” mentally disconnected and being vocal May 13, 2006, the day she allegedly killed her.

“It’s just really heartbreaking,” McCarron confessed of Katie’s disconnect.

“Autism left me hollow,” a soft-spoken McCarron said during the May 15 interview from her hospital room at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria. She was being treated for an attempted overdose of extra-strength Tylenol and had a small scratch on her wrist from a kitchen knife.

The tape was played in Tazewell County Circuit Court Tuesday during a hearing to suppress evidence in the year-old case.

Karen McCarron is charged with two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of obstructing justice and one count of concealment of a homicidal death.

Karen McDonald can be reached at 346-5300 or kmcdonald@pjstar.com.

For more on this story, read Wednesday’s Journal Star.

Cure - Desireable or detestable?

Every day, I see numerous blogs, newsgroup posts, newspaper articles and BS therapies all focused on the subject of autism, the dirty "A" word that generates a lot of talk, money and controversy wherever it is uttered.

What is it about this subject that generates this type of activity?

A neurological disorder that affects a person's perception (by perception I mean sensory perception as well as psychological) of and interaction with the world, thus affecting a person's development on a number of levels, autism is an enigma.

Most notable to a society bent on social propriety is the lack of social development in Autism, which is what is primarily focused on in therapy regimes. Whether the lack of social development is the actual problem in Autism or simply a reaction to more deeply felt physical and psychological discomfort remains to be scientifically proven.

Like any other disorder, disability or difference in being, Autism affects not only the autistic person, but those around him or her as well. Naturally, a great majority of non-autistic people who are affected because of their association with an autistic person, would like to see it cured.

Fair enough. They don't understand autism, they're not autistic and therefore they see it in a different light.

Now, in the case of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, strokes, liver problems, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, etc., those with the condition would like to see it cured. I don't know of many people with most health problems who would not want to see their particular concern cured. Who'd want to have cancer or diabetes? Not me!

Autism is a different animal altogether in that there are a great number of autistic people who do *not* want to be cured. In fact, some get pretty darned offended if the subject is brought up!

"Why?", the curebies (folks who want the cure) ask. "How could they possibly not want to be cured??"

Why indeed? That is the question, isn't it?

Naturally, a very distinct conflict can be seen here. A rift has been placed between autistic adults (or the "neurodiversity" crowd) who don't want the cure and the parents, researchers, etc. (or the "neurotypical" crowd) who do want the cure.

I read about a man who approached a non-verbal autistic person and said that what she was writing was pretty intelligent, which meant she must be able to think. Did that mean his autistic daughter could think too??

Yoy...

How does one deal with all of this??

Just today, I read an article in the New York Times about the Wright family. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/us/18autism.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Just a quick overview:

A young fellow by the name of Christian Wright was diagnosed with autism back in 2004.

In response to this, his grandparents, Bob and Suzanne Wright, founded one of the most infamous organizations known to autistic kind: Autism Speaks. We've all heard of them, right? This is the group that many of us will say quite loud and proud "does not speak for us, thanks" (nor do they listen to us on most occasions...) . This is the group that claims to be speaking for autism, but refuse to listen when autism actually does speak to them! (By that, I mean Autistics speaking to them and they're not listening)

Autism Speaks is what can be called a "Mega Charity", which focuses on raising money and awareness to curing the "dreaded neurological disorder" (per the article which I'll be posting at the end per my usual process).

These two founders believe that autism is genetic and intensive [behavioural] therapy is the way to go.

Here's the kicker. Their daughter, Katie, the mother of Christian, sides with the folks who think vaccines or certain environmental issues are the cause of autism. She went on the Oprah Show to voice this opinion...which naturally led to quite the little rift in the family!

Now, it's a wonderful family feud with the whole genetic vs. vaccine, behavioural therapy vs addressing physical problems at the centre of it all.

I wonder if anyone has asked Christian what he thinks of all of this?

Stupid question...of course not. He's autistic. What would he know? What would any of us know?

This morning I was sent another link to a blog and a 7 year old autistic child had plenty to say about cures:

http://club166.blogspot.com/2007/06/out-of-mouths-of-babes.html

So, Liz was walking thru the local mall the other day, and they passed the central fountain (which has always been a big hit with Buddy Boy since he was at least 6 months old-even after sitting there watching it for 30 minutes he would scream when we left it). On this day the fountain was spewing pink water (which was just fine with Sweet Pea, as she loves anything pink).The pink water was a marketing thing for the Susan G. Komen race for the cure event that is coming to our town soon.

In explaining the event to Buddy Boy, she explained that everyone doesn't always run, and that many walk, much like the "Autism Walk" that we have taken part in in the past.

Well Buddy Boy put together the notions of "curing breast cancer" and "autism walk" together in his brain right away, and even though Liz never said anything about curing autism, he said,

"I don't want to be cured. I'm not sick."

He then seemed to infer that the Autism Walk money might be used to "cure" autism, because he stated,

"If we go on the Autism Walk again, we can just take their money. I am not sick."

Later, when Liz was in the car with the kids, listening to the same National Public Radio (NPR) story on autism that Autism Diva was, one of the participants referred to autism as a disease.

Immediately Buddy Boy piped up from the back seat,

"It's not a disease!"

Liz agreed, saying that autism is actually a disorder, to which Buddy Boy responded,

"It's not a disorder, either! Autism makes me special!"

To which Liz could only agree.Now I know that what a 7 year old puts forth as his opinion cannot be reliably said to be his opinion alone. Certainly a lot of what he says are just things he's heard. But while we certainly try to keep a positive spin on autism, we don't usually discuss autism politics or controversies in front of him (we're much more focused on discussing things like the proper channeling of aggression).

So when I heard this I was glad that Buddy Boy had what I considered a very healthy view of things, and seemed to be integrating his own feelings on the subject with things he's heard from us and others.

On top of that, all I can say is,"That's my boy!"

Way to go, Buddy Boy!

I've seen all sides of the debates going around:

Cure:

• Autistics want acceptance and do not want the focus to be on "cure". They'd rather see some focus on accepting them for who they are, helping them with what they need help with and looking at appropriate treatment options (i.e.: not ones that don't do much more than make a child "act normal").
• Parents want the cure...any cure, as long as it makes their child normal.

Causes:

• The mercury thing - Vaccines, environment, etc. It's been debunked, etc. Vaccines do not cause autism, yet it looks that way because autistic symptoms usually start showing up at around the same age. So, there's an argument which is a sticky one.
• The Genetic thing - While, I do tend to side with the genetics people only in the fact that I know it runs in my family, I do not agree with the other direction this one can take: screening for autism and preventing an autistic child from being born (Eugenics).

Treatments:

• The treatment options - ABA/IBI, Floortime, Son Rise, chelation, diets, etc., etc., etc. Everyone has their own opinions about them. Some vehemently advocate for them (see most charities and their begging for ABA money); others oppose them.

Funding:

• The funding argument usually surrounds the very expensive treatments such as ABA/IBI, etc. Almost all of the treatments for autism are not covered under health care plans, so funding is a big issue which goes up to the government level.
• Funding also surrounds research of all types as well, which has its own set of arguments.

So, what's the solution?

Who's right?

Who's wrong?

What's the answer?

How do we make everyone happy?

Looking at what has been written by autistic people all over the world (getting the Truth Out, autistics.org, Please Don't Mourn for Us by Jim Sinclair, etc.) when did the focus stop being on what is right for autistic people themselves??

Looking at how many autistic people are excluded from having an opinion with Autism societies and charities, why are these people not seeing that we autistics have something to say and contribute?

And if they do see it, why are they not doing something about it?

Autistics are autistic. Autistics, in my opinion, would know far more than any parent or professional about what being autistic is like, right? Autistics may not know *everything*, but they do know what they are going through far better than anyone else.

Would it not make sense, then, to perhaps listen to what lots of autistics are saying rather than just relegating them to the back burner and patronizing them? It's not like autistics are not saying anything!

For years, many of the core personal and medical issues for each person have been largely ignored based on the way the professionals see autism. The stomach problems, the sensory issues, the constant strain on a person's mind and body...none of this is looked at. In fact, many of these so-called therapies exacerbate these core issues.

To most of the professionals out there, autism is still strictly behavioural...something that can be helped with some behavioural modification.

What would I like to see?

I would like to see more legitimate studies done on this topic and the attitudes of many parents and professionals changed to realize just what is going on inside their children or clients.
This may involve something a little uncomfortable for those NT therapists and psychologists - changing their outlook on something. (And they call us rigid)

For myself, I see the connection because when things are bad or I'm overloaded, I feel very stressed out and, dare I say it? - Traumatized. I know how I feel. I know that it's not going to stop.

Others know how they feel. But for some reason, the medical community refuses to acknowledge it if the child hasn't been abused or traumatized in a more "conventional" way (war, abuse, disaster, etc.) . For some reason, 40 hours of intensive behaviour modification is what is considered "medically necessary" by most societies, parents, etc.

Forcing a child to pretend to be normal doesn't help. You may see an autistic child acting normal and think it's all ok, but it's not!

Would you treat an abused or otherwise traumatized child that way? Probably not for fear they'd just get even more traumatized!

Why is is this ok for autistic kids?

In my opinion, it all boils down to that "theory of mind" concept working both ways. When people start showing a little empathy toward autistics and properly addressing the actual *why* behind the behaviours, I think things may turn out to be better for all involved.

Autistics are expected to know how NT's feel. What about autistics' feelings? Is it not just as important for NT's to know how autistics feel? Do we not have feelings?

If we look at the earlier story about the man who was shocked that an autistic could think...that question is easily answered: apparently, we don't have feelings, nor do we have any valid opinion.

As I've heard from so many NT's and communication seminars: "Communication works both ways. It is not a one way street."

Perhaps it is time to start opening the dialogue both ways and doing some research into this - one of those core problems I always mention.

Many autistics say they would not want to be cured because they'd lose their creativity, their abilities, etc.

I agree in that respect. I would not want to lose my photographic memory, my ability to stay cool under stress, my ability to instantly go into a meditative state and my ability to logically think things through.

I would, however, like my stomach problems to be fixed and my sensory issues to be dealt with so they are not bugging me.

I would also like to be able to go through a day with the feeling that my stress is accumulating to the point where I feel like I'm going to snap because I spend my day being someone I'm not.

I would like to really be able to relax.

I would like help with the things I actually need help with.

I would like very much if my credibility at a job or something didn't go down the toilet because it gets out that I'm on the autism spectrum.

I'd like to stop being seen as something that tears families apart, destroys people, steals children or is an epidemic. (If anything tears families apart, it is their lack of acceptance and their pet theories not working)

I would like to be heard and listened to.

I would like to be treated appropriately, with respect and with empathy.

I would like for others to be more open as to the different possibilities.

Is that too much to ask?

Perhaps, but I'm asking anyway...

Autism Debate Strains a Family and Its Charity

By JANE GROSS and STEPHANIE STROM Published: June 18, 2007

A year after their grandson Christian received a diagnosis of autism in 2004, Bob Wright, then chairman of NBC/Universal, and his wife, Suzanne, founded Autism Speaks, a mega-charity dedicated to curing the dreaded neurological disorder that affects one of every 150 children in America today.

The Wrights' venture was also an effort to end the internecine warfare in the world of autism - where some are convinced that the disorder is genetic and best treated with intensive therapy, and others blame preservatives in vaccinations and swear by supplements and diet to cleanse the body of heavy metals.

With its high-powered board, world-class scientific advisers and celebrity fund-raisers like Jerry Seinfeld and Paul Simon, the charity was a powerful voice, especially in Washington. It also made strides toward its goal of unity by merging with three existing autism organizations and raising millions of dollars for research into all potential causes and treatments. The Wrights call it the "big tent" approach.

But now the fissures in the autism community have made their way into the Wright family, where father and daughter are not speaking after a public battle over themes familiar to thousands of families with autistic children.

The Wrights' daughter, Katie, the mother of Christian, says her parents have not given enough support to the people who believe, as she does, that the environment - specifically a synthetic mercury preservative in vaccines - is to blame. No major scientific studies have linked pediatric vaccination and autism, but many parents and their advocates persist, and a federal "vaccine court" is now reviewing nearly 4,000 such claims.

The Wright feud has played out in cyberspace and spilled into Autism Speaks, where those who disagree with Katie Wright's views worry that she is setting its agenda. And the family intent on healing a fractured community has instead opened its old wounds and is itself riven.

The rift began in April when Katie put herself squarely on the side of "The Mercurys," as that faction is known, on Oprah Winfrey, where she described how her talkative toddler turned unresponsive and out-of- control after his vaccines and only improved with unconventional, and untested, remedies.

In a Web interview with David Kirby, author of the controversial book, "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic," Ms. Wright lashed out at the "old guard" scientists and pioneering autism families. If the old-timers are unable to let go of "failed strategies," she said, they should "step aside" and let a new generation "have a chance to do something different with this money" that her parents' charity was dispensing.

Complaints poured in from those who said Ms. Wright's remarks were denigrating.

So, in early June, Bob and Suzanne Wright repudiated their daughter on the charity's Web site. "Katie Wright is not a spokesperson" for the organization, the Wrights said in a brusque statement. Her "personal views differ from ours." The Wrights also apologized to "valued volunteers" who had been disparaged. Told by friends how cold the rebuke sounded, Mrs. Wright belatedly added a line saying, "Katie is our daughter, and we love her very much."
Ms. Wright called the statement a "character assassination." She said she had not spoken to her father since. Ms. Wright continues to spend time with her mother, but said they had not discussed the situation.

"I totally respect if her feelings were hurt," Mrs. Wright said. "But a lot of feelings were hurt. A lot."

Now other autism families who hoped to put their differences aside are shouting at each other in cyberspace. "Our struggle is not and should not be against each other," said Ilene Lainer, the mother of an autistic child and the executive director of the New York Center for Autism.
The big tent approach of Autism Speaks appealed to Mel Karmazin, chief executive of Sirius Radio and an early board member and contributor. "If you look at what projects Autism Speaks has funded, we are agnostic," he said.

Mr. Karmazin, who also has an autistic grandson, added, "I never wanted to look my grandson in the eye and tell him I'm taking just one viewpoint or that I think it had to be genetic."
Bob and Suzanne Wright are sympathetic to Katie's plight, having witnessed Christian's sudden regression and his many physical ailments, mostly gastrointestinal, which afflict many autistic children.

The boy did not respond to behavioral therapies, the Wrights said, leading to their daughter's desperate search for anything that might help. "When you have that sense of hopelessness, and don't see results, you do things that other people think is too risky," Mr. Wright said. "The doctors say, 'Wait for the science.' But you don't have time to wait for the science."

The Wrights agreed to disagree with most of Katie's views. But her public attack on other parents crossed a line, Mr. and Mrs. Wright said in separate telephone interviews.

"I know my daughter feels deeply that not enough is being done," Mr. Wright said. "The larger issue is we want to be helpful to everyone, and to do that we need information, data, facts."
Some in the traditional scientific community worry that Autism Speaks has let Ms. Wright's experience shape its agenda. She scoffs at the notion. Her parents, she said in a telephone interview, are "courageous" and "trying very hard," but have been slow to explore alternative approaches.

"You can say it and say it and say it," she said. "Show me evidence that they're actively researching vaccines."

The Wright family's fight has captured the attention of the bloggers, who are now questioning everything from its office lease to how it makes grants. The charity rebutted the bloggers' accusations of improprieties in interviews with The New York Times, which examined its IRS forms and read relevant sections to Gerald A. Rosenberg, former head of the New York State attorney general's charities bureau. He said nothing he reviewed was untoward.

The most distinctive aspect of Autism Speaks is its alliance with Autism Coalition for Research and Education, an advocacy group; the National Alliance for Autism Research, devoted to scientific research into potential genetic causes, with high standards for peer review; and Cure Autism Now, which has championed unconventional theories and therapies.

Which wing of the merged charity is ascendant? Some establishment scientists and parents now fear it is The Mercurys. They point to Cure Autism Now's having more seats than the National Alliance does on the board of directors and the growing number of research projects that focus on environmental causes.

At a recent benefit gala, featuring Bill Cosby and Toni Braxton, some in the audience were surprised when Mr. Wright announced that all proceeds would go toward environmental research, which generally includes vaccines.

But a list of current research grants on the Autism Speaks Web site suggests that the Wrights, while walking a fine line, are leaning toward genetic theories.

From 2005 to 2007, the charity sponsored $11.5 million in grants for genetic research (compared with $5.9 million by all its partners between 1997 and 2004). It sponsored $4.4 million in environmental research (down from $6 million granted by the partners in the previous seven years). And many of the environmental studies explore what is known as the double-hit hypothesis: That the genes for autism may be activated in some children by exposure to mercury or other neuro- toxins.

Bob and Suzanne Wright say their two-year immersion into the world of autism has been an eye-opener, especially the heated arguments worthy of the Hatfields and McCoys.

Mrs. Wright is aware that the marriage of the Alliance and Cure Autism Now, for instance, could fall apart over opposing ideologies. "I'm not going to let it," she said. "The truth will rise to the top."

She is also aware that the rift in her own family needs repair: On Friday, her daughter posted a message on an autism Web site questioning their "personal denouncement of me."

Yet Mrs. Wright is confident that "we'll work our way through this." Autism, she said "has done enough damage to my family. I'm not letting it do any more."