Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Does the CDC Promote Harmful Pathological Views of Us, Deaf People?

To answer this question above the title of blog posting - DEFINITELY YES!

I hardly bother to check out various online government websites, especially the Center for Disease Control (CDC) official website.

See for yourselves! Here are several attachments -


How interesting for the CDC define us, deaf people as
"development disabilities"!

The CDC and other government agencies need to see that culturally deaf
people do not cost very much as assecorizing deaf babies and youngsters
with very limited capabilities and costly devices and speech therapies. Pure AUDISM on the part of the Center for Disease Control and other government agencies like National Center on Deafness (NCD). Remember that the use of sign language and American Sign Language and other sign languages around the world are free and very convenient and fully accessible as compared to the over dependency on artificial means to mimic like a parrot in the cage.


How interesting within the quote from parent of deaf child -
Check out that quote from the link above!

Did you see that several references to parents of deaf newborn baby and
child - Urge them for getting the medical intervention.

Is our own national government promote human perfectionism and linguicism?
Definitely the sure thing!

ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)


  1. Exactly...You know what is scary? The US government acted like Nazi regime who expected Deaf community to be human perfectionism.

    Blue eyes, Blond hair, Hearing, perfect body, and (some flaws area need to be fixed by professional plastic surgery).

  2. Good lord, GET OVER IT!

    There are MANY diseases, syndromes, and other issues that CO-EXIST with deafness. Ushers, CHARGE, and yes, BRAIN DAMAGE, are all reasons a person could have a hearing loss.

    Many people have deafness as one of many issuses that affect their health. THAT is why the CDC sees it as a health issue...Geez

  3. Let the deaf community attain their high paranoia stage. They'll be more useful that way (at least to me).


  4. Robert Alfred HawkinsApril 1, 2009 at 1:38 AM

    Why haven't the NAD put out a statement about this information to clarify or something to effect? Hmm...

  5. Neither CDC page you link contains any outright audism at all.

    Does it cost money for hearing families to adjust to having a deaf child? Yes. Even ASL is not free. It takes time to learn and someone has to be paid to teach it. Other adjustments will need to be made and they will cost money too.

    You think VRS is free just because deaf people don't pay for it? The interpreters are not volunteers. The government you're criticizing pays them(http://sorensonvrs.com/what/faqs-general.php#gen-3).

    Even VP for direct ASL-ASL conversation requires expensive technology and high-speed internet. Not free and certainly more expensive than phones used by hearing people.

    So yes, it is possible to estimate how much it costs for hearing families to adjust to having deaf family members and to do things to ensure that deaf family members are included fully in the family.

    Is early detection of hearing loss critical in helping deaf children do well? You have to be kidding to suggest otherwise. Do you want all deaf children born to hearing families to be months and years behind getting access to language because their parents don't even realize that hearing loss is why their child is not learning to talk?

  6. Zen,

    Whatever you say about the CDC not promote pathological view of deaf people as economical burdensome or not.

    That's how the CDC imply such manner about the costly economic cost of being a deaf person. Come on!

    I am talking about the long-term uses of sign language and basic educational access - signing classrooms as compared to oral and AVT classes.

    If deaf people do not use any hearing aids or CI device compared to any deaf person without those devices. No costly hearing aid battery or CI surgery and ongoing speech therapy.

    The signing classrooms are more effective and cost-contained than oral classrooms and AVT classrooms.

    Cochelar implanting deaf babies and youngsters resemble cattle brandings. Don't you agree?


  7. Actually, self contained ASL classes are MUCH more expensive than mainstreaming.

  8. RLM, I disagree about CI being anything like cattle branding, but I can see why you think so.

    I don't know enough about specific costs for things like ASL-only schools and how they compare to hearing schools, but they certainly do cost money and serve a lot fewer children. So my guess is: overall educating deaf children in non-mainstream settings is expensive. Perhaps enough expensive that CIs, batteries, speech therapy, etc, are less expensive.

    If you want to make the claim about CDC's cost numbers being wrong, you need to prove it with numbers.