Santorum on Imus

[Guest guest]

I agree with your assessment of Santorum and your analysis. But the

Combating Autism Act was revised because of pressure and participation

by many parents and organizations (A-CHAMP, NAA, Safeminds, UA etc.)

working with and negotiating with the parent groups that initiated the

legislation--CAN, Autism Speaks.

The revised bill, while not perfect, is better than it was and is

sufficient to warrant support, in my opinion. A-CHAMP will have a web

page up later today or tomorrow that will highlight the changes. The

key is that if we get this bill passed we then have to keep up the

pressure to make sure that the NIH does the research called for in the

bill.

The revised bill has specific references to research for immunology,

toxicology, endocrinology and gastroenterolgo and specifically

references vaccines. It also calls for enhanced parent involvement.

The way to neutralize the political problems is our active involvement.

Keep an open mind until you see the actual language and revisions. The

url for the site under construction is

http://www.a-champ.org/CombatingAutismActRevised.html

Still under construction but will have language and revisions posted

and downloadable no later than Friday.

On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Rmoffi@... wrote:

> To say I am unimpressed with Santorum's carefully constructed phrasing

> about pending legislation would be an overstatement.  If I understood

> him correctly, the legislation will seek to find the cause and cure

> for autism by creating a " broad based " investigation of unidentified

> " toxins " that may be responsible. When all the words were spoken, I

> was left with the impression, fairly or not, the legislation appears

> to have been written by politicians fearful of offending public health

> bureaucrats and drug company executives.  Unfortunately, these are the

> very same powerful interests that had the responsibility to answer a

> simple question for decades:  Does thimerosal cause autism? 

> The question demands a scientific " yes " or " no " answer.  Yet, for

> decades these same vested interests have given a resounding " maybe no "

> as their answer.  How in God's name can Santorum expect us to have any

> confidence in legislation that " broadens their investigation to

> include all toxins " when they have yet to answer " no " to the simple

> question of thimerosal?

>  

>  

>  

>  

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

He also said,

> " We include environmental factors, which certainly thimerosal

would be one of those, mercury would be one of them. "

>

> We need to hold him to that statement.

>

>

>

Thats an interesting statement concidering when my sons father wrote

to him back when we were trying to get them to vote no to the

homeland ryder he basicaly told us we were full of it and to have a

nice day my son's dad wrote him back with tons of web sites for him

to research with his closing line telling him to enjoy his free flu

shot