It felt a bit truncated, and odd at that. Why does it end with the publication of the troublesome and retracted _Lancet_ article, and focus on the author continuing his anti-vaccination efforts rather than identifying the harm the article caused?
It feels like a work in progress for sure. They seem to be aiming for an encyclopedic style of writing (although without the depth that also implies) there is no mention made of concerns about ABA in the article about Ivar Lovaas, or in the article on Hans Asperger about his complicity with euthanasia
I think that the previous slide of 1998, which says "the neurologically different represent a new addition to the familiar political categories of class/gender/race and will augment the insights of the social model of disability" is potentially interesting. It seems too open-ended, though; in what way "different"?
It felt a bit truncated, and odd at that. Why does it end with the publication of the troublesome and retracted _Lancet_ article, and focus on the author continuing his anti-vaccination efforts rather than identifying the harm the article caused?