Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

[Guest guest]

That is excellent- if that is the strategy.

Now for the thimerosal/vaccine research.

Safeminds statement on CAA

Pardon me if this has already been posted here. The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the end: "Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good," the alternative of having no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its effective implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough."http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html

[Guest guest]

,

I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best, but breaking a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations and definitely not build relationships with those who have the real power, the parents who support the organizations.

It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only other organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in my opinion.

, MAM

-----Original Message-----From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ]On Behalf Of BarrySent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:16 AMEOHarm Subject: Safeminds statement on CAA

Pardon me if this has already been posted here. The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the end: "Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good," the alternative of having no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its effective implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough."http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html

[Guest guest]

Barry,

Unfortunately, you and others seem blind to

the " evil " that the CAA embodies.

If you would know this bill for what it is,

you need only look at the reality that the

healthcare establishment and the Dr. Frist's

of this country are its greatest proponents.

When that which is " evil " proposes a " good "

bill, it is only because that bill supports

the goals of that which is " evil. "

If you believe propaganda and Orwellian

doublespeak are " education " then the CAA

is certainly a bill you would want to

support.

If you believe that searching for the genes

that CAUSE " autism disorder " (by DEFINITION,

a CAUSELESS disorder diagnosed by symptoms),

then the CAA is a bill you would want to

support.

Fortunately, I and many others are NOT

blinded by the argument that " accomplishing

something is better than nothing " when that

" something " :

1. Is not in the interests of those who have

been harmed and

2. Does nothing to stop more people from

being harmed.

As to the carrot of " additional legislation

in the future, " my experience is that it

is an illusion -- once the CAA is enacted,

the enemies of the health of the public

will use it as a shield against additional

funds and root-cause research.

If those who are the parents or friends of

these damaged children and/or hope to stop

the damage so that no more children will be

harmed seek help, the last place they should

be going for funding is to a government that

is " owned " by those who have been and are

profiting from the harm it has inflicted, is

inflicting, and wants to continue to inflict.

If the parents of those with autism

spectrum disorders and the other

neurodevelopmental disorders and behaviorial

problems want the " root causes " of the harm

to be proven, then they should form a tax-

deductible " charitable " organization dedicated

to findingf the root causes of the harm and the

most cost-effective thearapies to help those

harmed as much as possible, collect $100.00

for each damaged child every year, and spend

that money for, among other things:

1. Fighting to stop any and all biological

drug products that have NOT been proven

to be safe (as required by law) and

effective, including truly cost-effective,

from being marketed in the U.S. as well as

in any other country on Earth

2. Doing the fundamental toxicological studies

that the government and, though required

to conduct them by law, the healthcare

establishment have for decades, respectively,

refused to require, and refused to conduct.

3. Fully diagnosing each and every damaged

child.

4. Conducting therapy trials to establish the

most effective therapies for each treatable

damage pattern found by a complete

diagnostic work-up.

5. Based on the results of the trials,

promulgating and implementing the most

effective therapies found.

6. Pursuing legal remedies in the court that

would address the harm done and those who

were knowingly engaged in the apparently

crimininal racket that inflicted that harm.

As to the statement " a belief that the

federal government is so untrustworthy and

corrupted that no positive step forward will

ever be fast enough or good enough, " I find

that the realities are:

1. Since this government has repeatedly proven

itself to be " untrustworthy " and " corrupted "

when it comes to protecting the public health,

there is no " belief " in these areas -- their

factual validity has been proven.

2. The " no positive step forward " falsely protrays

the CAA -- it is NOT a step forward -- it is

only being marketed as " a step forward. "

3. The writers of this piece are attempting to

get the " autism community " to buy yet another

" pig in a polk " -- coupled with promises to do

better in the future.

Based on the preceding, those pushing for the

" autism community " to support this " Faustian "

bargain, the CAA, are captives of the very system

that has caused and is causing the harm -- selling

out in order to be able to tout their

" accomplishment " in getting the " best " bill that

those who are a part of the " evil " will allow

RATHER THAN honoring the commitment they made

to support the " consensus " language that,

BECAUSE of their selling out, was never even

a part of the draft language of the CAA.

If the choice is between honoring commitments

and selling out for aparent " personal " gain,

all who are truly servants of the " good " will

honor their commitment no matter the apparent

short-term cost -- yet the " sweet " words of

those groups who abandoned their commitment

are again being offered as an appeasement

to those who did not.

As my Master taught me, I must trust those who

betrayed their commitment to be true to the

fruit that they have borne -- as my Master said,

" Do men gather figs from thorn trees? "

The preceding realities seem clear to this

long-time observer of politics, the greed-

driven healthcare establishment, and the

government officials who are their allies.

As the servant, I cannot judge anyone; but

I do trust that my Master will hold them

appropriately accountable for their failure

to honor their commitment to getting the

" consensus " language into the CAA.

Respectfully,

Dr. King

http://www.dr-king.com

an imperfect servant of Elohim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At 14:15 8/27/06 -0000, you wrote:

>

>Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

>

>The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the

>end:

>

> " Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

>the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

>social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and

>providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more

>glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

>the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of having

>no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on

>constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its effective

>implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the

>community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation

>in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future

>legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

>than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the

>federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

>positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

>http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Speaking for myself as a parent, those orgs who worked to make CAA

as strong as possible didn't violate my trust.

I also think parents appreciate the efforts Safeminds makes when it

helps bring Drs. Herbert, Deth, Hornig, , and Bradstreet to

conferences like this ttp://www.neurotoxicology.com/conference.htm

(see the Sunday schedule).

There are valid reasons for orgs to walk away from CAA, and there

are valid reasons for orgs to support CAA. I don't think it's about

trust. I think it's more different means to try to accomplish the

same goals.

In EOHarm , " Medlin " <angelamedlin@...> wrote:

>

> ,

>

> I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best,

but breaking

> a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations

and

> definitely not build relationships with those who have the real

power, the

> parents who support the organizations.

>

> It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only

other

> organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in

my

> opinion.

>

> , MAM

> Safeminds statement on CAA

>

>

> Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

>

> The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near

the

> end:

>

> " Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

> the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

> social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases

and

> providing effective treatments for those already affected) is

more

> glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

> the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of

having

> no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses

on

> constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its

effective

> implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with

the

> community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional

legislation

> in the future, and building grassroots support for this and

future

> legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

> than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that

the

> federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

> positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

> http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-

CAA.html

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Speaking for myself as a parent, those orgs who worked to make CAA

as strong as possible didn't violate my trust.

I also think parents appreciate the efforts Safeminds makes when it

helps bring Drs. Herbert, Deth, Hornig, , and Bradstreet to

conferences like this ttp://www.neurotoxicology.com/conference.htm

(see the Sunday schedule).

There are valid reasons for orgs to walk away from CAA, and there

are valid reasons for orgs to support CAA. I don't think it's about

trust. I think it's more different means to try to accomplish the

same goals.

In EOHarm , " Medlin " <angelamedlin@...> wrote:

>

> ,

>

> I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best,

but breaking

> a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations

and

> definitely not build relationships with those who have the real

power, the

> parents who support the organizations.

>

> It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only

other

> organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in

my

> opinion.

>

> , MAM

> Safeminds statement on CAA

>

>

> Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

>

> The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near

the

> end:

>

> " Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

> the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

> social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases

and

> providing effective treatments for those already affected) is

more

> glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

> the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of

having

> no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses

on

> constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its

effective

> implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with

the

> community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional

legislation

> in the future, and building grassroots support for this and

future

> legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

> than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that

the

> federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

> positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

> http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-

CAA.html

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Safeminds statement says:

"passing CAA now, working for its effective implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough"

Kirby's "Evidence of Harm" begins with an introduction dated July 9, 2004 that says: "On May 18, 2004, the respected Institute of Medicine issued a much heralded report stating that the bulk of evidence "favors rejection of causal relationship between thimerosal and autism".

What has happened since May 18, 2004?

With all due respect, since May 18, 2004, many parents and dedicated researchers invested their energies and hopes on constructing a C.A.A. that would finally provide them the opportunity to challenge the IOM's "rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal and autism". That is precisely why they spent years working diligently "with staff and members, joining the community as allies in seeking solutions....building grassroots support for this and future legislation" that would provide the scientific reseach required to challenge the IOM's report.

Our children have a right to know if they were damaged by thimerosal/mercury in their childhood vaccines and it is simply wrong/naive to provide federal public health agencies legislation that may cause another five years of critical delay. Parents ought not be asked to "trust" our federal agencies will "eventually do the right thing". Parents ought to be supported in their demands for answers NOW.

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with ....I respect everything that those org's

(NAA, SafeMinds, ACHAMP) that have signed on to support the CAA have

done in the past, but I cant help but feel like they let my son and

our family down.......The bill is a sellout and gives the fed's the

ability to claim theyre doing something for our community when in

all reality, theyll do nothing as usual.....it will do nothing more

than deepen the rift that exists between different org's and parents

with differing opinions in our community.....IMHO, we should have

banded together to insure that the CAA did NOT pass....

Ellen

>

> ,

>

> I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best,

but breaking

> a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations

and

> definitely not build relationships with those who have the real

power, the

> parents who support the organizations.

>

> It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only

other

> organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in

my

> opinion.

>

> , MAM

> Safeminds statement on CAA

>

>

> Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

>

> The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near

the

> end:

>

> " Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

> the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

> social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases

and

> providing effective treatments for those already affected) is

more

> glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

> the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of

having

> no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses

on

> constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its

effective

> implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with

the

> community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional

legislation

> in the future, and building grassroots support for this and

future

> legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

> than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that

the

> federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

> positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

> http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-

CAA.html

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

>

> The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the

> end:

>

,

Excellent? I think this statement stinks.

>. . .Mindful that we must not let

> the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of having

> no CAA seems clearly inferior.

This is a straw man argument. No one is holding out for perfection,

which of course, is impossible. Root-cause research advocates are

holding out for effectiveness, and were willing to negotiate for it.

However, negotiations were left out of the process. The CAA is

ineffective for its smoke and mirrors approach to the vaccine-mercury

research issue. Pro CAA advocates, in their naivety disagree.

A political strategy that focuses on

> constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its effective

> implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the

> community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation

> in the future,

As points out, the CAA will be used a dodge for real root-cause

research. Pharma apologists will say for the next five years " we

already put up money for this kind of autism research in the CAA; we

don't need this, too. " -- just like they now point to the IOM findings.

.. . .and building grassroots support for this and future

> legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

> than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing

More straw man bs. The all-or-nothing choice was rushed, shoved down

our throats in a bait-and-switch manipulation by the CAA organizers

who knew this thing didn't have a chance if open to public debate. But

this is a much needed debate which would put Pharma and their

apologists in the spot-light for their evil doings. If we weaken our

opponents by exposing them, we'll eventually get a much better deal

than the closed door one before us now.

.. . .or a belief that the

> federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

> positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

This presumes that the steps being taken are actually positive ones

forward. I have yet to see convincing evidence. As for not trusting

the government, this can be said for public health agencies. Hello?

These agencies are too corrupted, cross-interested to be trusted. What

evidence is there that the NIEH, for example, will not screw with its

new research like they screwed with Burbacker's paper?

This notion that somewhere between the Pro-CAA camp and the pro-real

root cause research camp lies the truth is a fallacy that gives

comfort to conflict avoiding fence sitters. The CAA is a Trojan horse.

There, I said it. Ouch. It will take only one member of the House of

Representatives to kill this cynical piece. . . .

Lenny

[Guest guest]

those pushing for the

> " autism community " to support this " Faustian "

> bargain, the CAA, are captives of the very system

> that has caused and is causing the harm -- selling

> out in order to be able to tout their

> " accomplishment " in getting the " best " bill that

> those who are a part of the " evil " will allow

> RATHER THAN honoring the commitment they made

> to support the " consensus " language that,

> BECAUSE of their selling out, was never even

> a part of the draft language of the CAA.

>

Characterizing this disagreement with the CAA as a sell-out goes too

far. Our pro-CAA allies have not sold anyone out. " Sold out " means

they are acting in bad faith, with larcenous intent, for personal gain

at the expense of the whole. I don't see evidence of this from the pro

CAA camp. What I do see is that they sold us SHORT - in their naivety

they helped make a bad deal. Their " sin " is not evil-doing; it is bad

negotiating. I do not distrust these people's characters or

intentions. I do however, distrust their competence on these political

matters.

They are not evil. They are just wrong. It is a serious error to

confuse the two, for you will lose good friends and needed allies by

doing so -- and your ultimate success will be no better than theirs.

Lenny

[Guest guest]

Ellen, We can still band together to see it doesn't pass the House. MaurineEllen Sweeney <esweeney22@...> wrote: I have to agree with ....I respect everything that those org's (NAA, SafeMinds, ACHAMP) that have signed on to support the CAA have done in the past, but I cant help but feel like they let my son and our family down.......The bill is a sellout and gives the fed's the ability to claim theyre doing something for our community when in all reality, theyll do nothing as usual.....it

will do nothing more than deepen the rift that exists between different org's and parents with differing opinions in our community.....IMHO, we should have banded together to insure that the CAA did NOT pass....Ellen>> ,> > I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best, but breaking> a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations and> definitely not build relationships with those who have the real power, the> parents who support the organizations.> > It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only other> organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in my> opinion.> > , MAM> Safeminds statement on CAA> > > Pardon me if this has already been posted here.> > The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the> end:> > "Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share> the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a> social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and> providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more> glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let> the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good,"

the alternative of having> no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on> constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its effective> implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the> community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation> in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future> legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community> than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the> federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no> positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough."> http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html> > >

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

Ellen, We can still band together to see it doesn't pass the House. MaurineEllen Sweeney <esweeney22@...> wrote: I have to agree with ....I respect everything that those org's (NAA, SafeMinds, ACHAMP) that have signed on to support the CAA have done in the past, but I cant help but feel like they let my son and our family down.......The bill is a sellout and gives the fed's the ability to claim theyre doing something for our community when in all reality, theyll do nothing as usual.....it

will do nothing more than deepen the rift that exists between different org's and parents with differing opinions in our community.....IMHO, we should have banded together to insure that the CAA did NOT pass....Ellen>> ,> > I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best, but breaking> a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations and> definitely not build relationships with those who have the real power, the> parents who support the organizations.> > It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only other> organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in my> opinion.> > , MAM> Safeminds statement on CAA> > > Pardon me if this has already been posted here.> > The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the> end:> > "Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share> the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a> social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and> providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more> glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let> the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good,"

the alternative of having> no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on> constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its effective> implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the> community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation> in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future> legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community> than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the> federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no> positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough."> http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html> > >

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

Ellen,

I would like to point out that on July 18, 2006 A-CHAMP withdrew its

endorsement for the Combating Autism Act.

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

Thanks,

RJK

> >

> > ,

> >

> > I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best,

> but breaking

> > a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations

> and

> > definitely not build relationships with those who have the real

> power, the

> > parents who support the organizations.

> >

> > It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only

> other

> > organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in

> my

> > opinion.

> >

> > , MAM

> > Safeminds statement on CAA

> >

> >

> > Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

> >

> > The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near

> the

> > end:

> >

> > " Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

> > the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

> > social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases

> and

> > providing effective treatments for those already affected) is

> more

> > glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

> > the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of

> having

> > no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses

> on

> > constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its

> effective

> > implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with

> the

> > community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional

> legislation

> > in the future, and building grassroots support for this and

> future

> > legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

> > than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that

> the

> > federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

> > positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

> > http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-

> CAA.html

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Ellen,

I would like to point out that on July 18, 2006 A-CHAMP withdrew its

endorsement for the Combating Autism Act.

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

Thanks,

RJK

> >

> > ,

> >

> > I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best,

> but breaking

> > a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations

> and

> > definitely not build relationships with those who have the real

> power, the

> > parents who support the organizations.

> >

> > It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only

> other

> > organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in

> my

> > opinion.

> >

> > , MAM

> > Safeminds statement on CAA

> >

> >

> > Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

> >

> > The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near

> the

> > end:

> >

> > " Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

> > the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

> > social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases

> and

> > providing effective treatments for those already affected) is

> more

> > glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

> > the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of

> having

> > no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses

> on

> > constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its

> effective

> > implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with

> the

> > community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional

> legislation

> > in the future, and building grassroots support for this and

> future

> > legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

> > than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that

> the

> > federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

> > positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

> > http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-

> CAA.html

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I meant to come back and clarify that ACHAMP did in fact bow out

of supporting the bill.....

I believe in what you and everyone else at ACHAMP has done and I

support all of you 1000+% percent.....We are still here in NJ

chipping away at our legislators and we all appreciate the help you,

, Bobbie, et al have given us.....its been phenomenal

all the best,

Ellen

> > >

> > > ,

> > >

> > > I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is

best,

> > but breaking

> > > a consensus will not build relationships with other

organizations

> > and

> > > definitely not build relationships with those who have the

real

> > power, the

> > > parents who support the organizations.

> > >

> > > It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not

only

> > other

> > > organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart

move in

> > my

> > > opinion.

> > >

> > > , MAM

> > > Safeminds statement on CAA

> > >

> > >

> > > Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

> > >

> > > The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this

near

> > the

> > > end:

> > >

> > > " Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we

share

> > > the frustration of many in the community that progress

toward a

> > > social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new

cases

> > and

> > > providing effective treatments for those already affected)

is

> > more

> > > glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

> > > the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of

> > having

> > > no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that

focuses

> > on

> > > constructive engagement—passing CAA now, working for its

> > effective

> > > implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining

with

> > the

> > > community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional

> > legislation

> > > in the future, and building grassroots support for this and

> > future

> > > legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our

community

> > > than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief

that

> > the

> > > federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

> > > positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good

enough. "

> > > http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-

> > CAA.html

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, .

Hey, thanks again for your help in locating a mom for that documentary.

I'm writing because I'm trying hard to understand a few things about the CAA bill.

Last spring, I decided not to help NAA with the CAA bill.

Said no because I had some personal stuff to deal with at the time. But I had an additional incentive as well. I didn't like the idea of it...too much like VICA, too many possible loopholes to be used against our kids.

I guess I have the advantage over many folks because I know the people who stuck with it, therefore I had the opportunity to ask them a lot of questions. And throughout it all, and in listening to their specific reasoning unselectively, I believe they did the right thing in sticking with it.

But, I genuinely...and sincerely...want to understand what specific problems there are with each part of the bill. I don't ask this to be difficult. I truly want to know the detailed specifics of the concerns.

I've been seeing many say that they simply think it's a bad bill, that there is an overall lack of trust with the bill, that there are a lot of what if's, and that they are upset about the language, etc.,...but I haven't seen any specific details and what the plan would be to change those details, so I'm left trying to gain a better understanding of what's not liked.

If you could provide detailed explanations of what you don't like about the bill as a whole...including the specific language which covers everything from early diagnosis to fund allocation, I think there would be a stronger foundation to discuss the issue.

Best,

Lori

On 8/27/06 11:34 AM, " Medlin " <angelamedlin@...> wrote:

,

I think it is every groups choice to do what they feel is best, but breaking a consensus will not build relationships with other organizations and definitely not build relationships with those who have the real power, the parents who support the organizations.

It all comes down to trust....that trust was broken with not only other organizations, but many parents as well. Not a very smart move in my opinion.

, MAM

Safeminds statement on CAA

Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the

end:

" Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and

providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more

glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of having

no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on

constructive engagement˜passing CAA now, working for its effective

implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the

community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation

in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future

legislation˜is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the

federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html

[Guest guest]

The query for those who negotiate:

Revere?

Revere riding on the horse backward?

or Tokyo Rose?

Some are the first, most are the second, is anyone the third?

Think of the damage the third could do.

Just asking.

Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

those pushing for the > "autism community" to support this "Faustian" > bargain, the CAA, are captives of the very system > that has caused and is causing the harm -- selling > out in order to be able to tout their > "accomplishment" in getting the "best" bill that > those who are a part of the "evil" will allow > RATHER THAN honoring the commitment they made > to support the "consensus" language that, > BECAUSE of their selling out, was never even > a part of the draft language of the CAA.> Characterizing this disagreement with the CAA as a sell-out goes toofar. Our pro-CAA allies have not sold anyone out. "Sold out" meansthey are acting in bad faith, with larcenous intent, for personal gainat the expense of the whole. I don't see evidence of this from the proCAA camp. What I do see is that they sold us SHORT - in their naivetythey helped make a bad deal. Their "sin" is not evil-doing; it is badnegotiating. I do not distrust these people's characters orintentions. I do however, distrust their competence on these politicalmatters.They are not evil. They are just wrong. It is a serious error toconfuse the two, for you will lose good friends and needed allies bydoing so -- and your ultimate success will be no better than theirs.Lenny

[Guest guest]

Now might be an opportune time to visit SafeMind’s website

again and remind ourselves of the efforts, battles, research and advocacy

they promote, participate in, and

mentor; their support of the CAA helps ensure a direction we will all

fight for; without it, we lose a foot in the door that

we cannot afford to lose.

.. .

Visit www.safeminds.org

this refresher is like a breath of fresh air, a renewed

faith in our goals and beliefs.

While we do so, it is also an opportune time to re-visit A-CHAMP’s site

as well, www.achamp.org

One can see we truly are united on many fronts.

Let’s not lose sight of that, nor of

the accomplishments of these organizations. Suzanne Messina

REAACH

From:

EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Rmoffi@...

Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:54

PM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: Safeminds

statement on CAA

Safeminds statement says:

" passing CAA now, working for its

effective

implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the

community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation

in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future

legislation—is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the

federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough "

Kirby's " Evidence of

Harm " begins with an introduction dated July 9, 2004 that says:

" On May 18, 2004, the respected Institute

of Medicine issued a

much heralded report stating that the bulk of evidence " favors rejection

of causal relationship between thimerosal and autism " .

What has happened since May 18,

2004?

With all due respect, since May 18,

2004, many parents and dedicated researchers invested their energies

and hopes on constructing a C.A.A. that would finally provide them

the opportunity to challenge the IOM's " rejection of a causal relationship

between thimerosal and autism " . That is precisely why they spent

years working diligently " with staff and members, joining the community as

allies in seeking solutions....building grassroots support for this and

future legislation " that would provide the scientific reseach required to

challenge the IOM's report.

Our children have a right to know if they

were damaged by thimerosal/mercury in their childhood vaccines and it is

simply wrong/naive to provide federal public health agencies legislation that

may cause another five years of critical delay. Parents ought not be

asked to " trust " our federal agencies will " eventually do the

right thing " . Parents ought to be supported in their demands for

answers NOW.

[Guest guest]

Beautifully put, Ed.......and you are

right we are not going away; we are in this for the duration..to educate,

to advocate, to work with

and enlighten our legislators, doctors

teachers, and therapists, while we heal the damage done, and try to salvage a

life for our families, financially,

emotionally, and medically

Suzanne REAACH

From:

EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Ed

Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:13

PM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: Safeminds

statement on CAA

THere are thousands of parents out there who can not

afford to chelate,

and I am one of them. In Cincinnati,

a four year old boy with autism

was taken from his mother because he kept getting into accidents and

wondering off, and now he has gone " missing " from his foster family

under suspicious circumstances. The press keeps saying he is a " special

needs child " , as if autism is a dirty word. I know of a man who is

having trouble holding his job, because his wife ran out on him and he

is having trouble finding a proper sitter. He has went from one house

trailer to another, struggling for existence. They say this disease is

not fatal, I say it can be and has been fatal, and those who continue

to cover up the vaccine link are guilty of murder.

If CAA can help families of autistic children, families like those

described above, while still allowing the pursuit of the mercury autism

link, then I am all for it. I am just a father of two damaged children,

One with autism and one with Add. I have no real afiliation with any

autism groups, although we all want the same thing, a cure for autism

and the punishment of those who would poison for profit. It is going to

happen regardless of the Caa, because there are many out there like me,

and we are starting to open our eyes and wake up.

[Guest guest]

Hi Lori:

My post was really about the consensus process. If you really want to discuss the CAA I insist you go first and please state how you feel the bill, as it is written, will benefit mercury injured children.

, MAM

Safeminds statement on CAA Pardon me if this has already been posted here. The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the end: "Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good," the alternative of having no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on constructive engagement˜passing CAA now, working for its effective implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future legislation˜is more likely to achieve the goals of our community than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough."http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html

[Guest guest]

;

What I’m trying to find out is what specifically is not liked about all aspects of the bill by those who are continually expressing the majority of concern, and how---specifically---each component of the bill language will negatively affect mercury-poisoned children. If this cannot be provided in detail, then I’m not sure how expressing generalized concerns helps the situation---other than arguing for the sake of arguing.

Again, I’m trying to understand---very specifically---what those concerns are. If there are specific concerns, it’s only in everyone’s best interest to hear what they are so they can be addressed. If you can list detailed concerns about each aspect of the bill---then we would have a better foundation to discuss those concerns.

I understand you want me to list the benefits, and are throwing the ball back in my court. I get that. However, if this bill truly will harm our children, I think those points should take priority. Like you, I am the parent of a child damaged by mercury.

Respectfully,

Lori

On 8/27/06 9:02 PM, " Medlin " <angelamedlin@...> wrote:

Hi Lori:

My post was really about the consensus process. If you really want to discuss the CAA I insist you go first and please state how you feel the bill, as it is written, will benefit mercury injured children.

, MAM

Safeminds statement on CAA

Pardon me if this has already been posted here.

The whole statement is excellent- I particularly like this near the

end:

" Given the immediacy and severe impact of this epidemic, we share

the frustration of many in the community that progress toward a

social consensus and a meaningful solution (stopping new cases and

providing effective treatments for those already affected) is more

glacial than expeditious. Mindful that we must not let

the " perfect " be the enemy of the " good, " the alternative of having

no CAA seems clearly inferior. A political strategy that focuses on

constructive engagement˘passing CAA now, working for its effective

implementation, working with staff and Members, now joining with the

community as allies in seeking solutions, for additional legislation

in the future, and building grassroots support for this and future

legislation˘is more likely to achieve the goals of our community

than a demand for the Consensus Bill or nothing or a belief that the

federal government is so untrustworthy and corrupted that no

positive step forward will ever be fast enough or good enough. "

http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/23Aug2006-CAA.html

[Guest guest]

Dr. King, I still say the most insane aspect of this entire thing is

that people really thought the gov would pass legislation to rat

themselves out.

Debi

[Guest guest]

Then let's all stop whining about the gov not ratting out themselves

in the CAA and raise the funds for our own research or what ever we

need. Heck, we parents have done it all along, why suddenly stop and

expect the gov to step up and prove that they did what we know they did.

Everyone has a right to discuss what ever they want, I'm just amazed

that the same arguments have continued now for months that CAA wasn't

what people wanted, in that they didn't put money to prove they caused

the problem. <sigh> All this wasted energy, we could have planned

nationwide fundraising events and lined up research studies. I get it,

people don't like CAA.

Debi, who's tired and should probably just go to bed.

[Guest guest]

Fire the government!

But be careful, they may sue us for discrimination.

What form of discrimination?

We'll wait to find out what legislation they pass.

Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

Then let's all stop whining about the gov not ratting out themselvesin the CAA and raise the funds for our own research or what ever weneed. Heck, we parents have done it all along, why suddenly stop andexpect the gov to step up and prove that they did what we know they did.Everyone has a right to discuss what ever they want, I'm just amazedthat the same arguments have continued now for months that CAA wasn'twhat people wanted, in that they didn't put money to prove they causedthe problem. <sigh> All this wasted energy, we could have plannednationwide fundraising events and lined up research studies. I get it,people don't like CAA. Debi, who's tired and should probably just go to bed.

[Guest guest]

Perhaps the strongest argument for killing CAA now and waiting until January is the fact that the administration will be back on their heels as they deal with the tidal wave of an anti-incumbent mood in Washington, the fact that this issue hopefully will have a huge impact on the election, and those elected will be far more honest in addressing this issue.

Most of the impediments to a more favorable CAA will be gone and prospects for a far more omnibus legislation will be much more highly likely.

The administration, rather than being able to cause mischief on the CAA, will hopefully have to deal with any number of investigations by Democratic committees. That will frustrate their purposes and occupy their time, rather than allowing them to frustrate ours.

Think back to the election of 1994.

Strong reason to kill the CAA now and wait until January to get a more rational bill. It can only get better.

It might get really, really good.

Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

Then let's all stop whining about the gov not ratting out themselvesin the CAA and raise the funds for our own research or what ever weneed. Heck, we parents have done it all along, why suddenly stop andexpect the gov to step up and prove that they did what we know they did.Everyone has a right to discuss what ever they want, I'm just amazedthat the same arguments have continued now for months that CAA wasn'twhat people wanted, in that they didn't put money to prove they causedthe problem. <sigh> All this wasted energy, we could have plannednationwide fundraising events and lined up research studies. I get it,people don't like CAA. Debi, who's tired and should probably just go to bed.

[Guest guest]

You are working under the assumption that the anti-incumbents will

be more aligned with the needs of the ASD community. There is

absolutely no basis for this belief. Doesn't matter what party, the

true allies on the hill are less then 10%. The democrats will never

investigate the CDC, FDA, HHS, NIH, NIMH, or the IOM because they

believe that these agencies, and the government actually work

effectively and this effective government is the very basis of their

existence. An investigation into any of these agencies will do

nothing more then expose the pork belly politics that goes on within

those agencies. Any politician that does that will be a one term

politician, if they make it THAT long.

>

> Perhaps the strongest argument for killing CAA now and waiting

until January is the fact that the administration will be back on

their heels as they deal with the tidal wave of an anti-incumbent

mood in Washington, the fact that this issue hopefully will have a

huge impact on the election, and those elected will be far more

honest in addressing this issue.

>

> Most of the impediments to a more favorable CAA will be gone and

prospects for a far more omnibus legislation will be much more

highly likely.

>

> The administration, rather than being able to cause mischief on

the CAA, will hopefully have to deal with any number of

investigations by Democratic committees. That will frustrate their

purposes and occupy their time, rather than allowing them to

frustrate ours.

>

> Think back to the election of 1994.

>

> Strong reason to kill the CAA now and wait until January to get a

more rational bill. It can only get better.

>

> It might get really, really good.

>

>

> Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

>

>

> Then let's all stop whining about the gov not ratting out

themselves

> in the CAA and raise the funds for our own research or what ever

we

> need. Heck, we parents have done it all along, why suddenly stop

and

> expect the gov to step up and prove that they did what we know

they did.

>

> Everyone has a right to discuss what ever they want, I'm just

amazed

> that the same arguments have continued now for months that CAA

wasn't

> what people wanted, in that they didn't put money to prove they

caused

> the problem. <sigh> All this wasted energy, we could have planned

> nationwide fundraising events and lined up research studies. I

get it,

> people don't like CAA.

>

> Debi, who's tired and should probably just go to bed.

>