Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

[Guest guest]

I completely agree 100%. That is why we have a better chance after the election.

This election will not be pro-Democrat. It will be anti-incumbent. This is 1994 all over again, with the exception that the Democrats have not positioned themselves to be anything other than spoilers. This is a "hold your nose and vote for the 'least-worst' candidate" type of election. That will be whoever is not the incubent. It may be a Democrat, it may be a Republican, although the Republicans have a much harder sell with the Iraq war and the perception/reality of the Bush administration's corruption.

The newly elected people have not had the opportunity to become corrupt and to be completely bought yet (that takes probably at least 2-4 years to pass along that know-how). The point people (Frist and Santorum) will be gone. The others who will take their place are not nearly as slick.

Dodd will be helpful. Kennedy won't fight this (he has a sense of decency) and he'll probably just recuse himself. The remaining senators on the HELP committee either won't derail the issue because it is too white-hot for them or they simply will be less effective than the present crew.

If there is a huge anti-incumbent vote in November as expected (Democrat or Republican-it's really irrelevant based upon the initial voting), then the establishment will be back on their heels- because they will be scrambling to pay off the newly elected, line up the lobbyists and corrupt the process.

That will take some time for them.

Not for us.

Carpe Diem

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.>

[Guest guest]

Politicians are aligned and bought before the final vote in there

election is cast. That is why and how they get in the game. If they

are not inclined to help your cause PRIOR to their election, it will

be even harder to persuade them after the election. It is just like

good ABA, you extinguish bad behavior BEFORE it becomes routine or

you will be fighting it for a long long time.

> >

> > 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.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That's true. But you take what you can get.

And although the newly minted will be tainted, they will not have the rot that takes time to fester and grow.

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.> >>

[Guest guest]

Lori:

Again, my post was about the consensus process.

You stated in your post, "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 you truly want to know, why not just address the question to everyone on this list instead of just me? Open it up to a group discussion?

I think if you want to discuss this start off by explaining how you feel it would benefit mercury injured children then let anyone who wants to express their thoughts post them back.

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, .

Your initial post said that all orgs can do what they think is best, and I became curious as to, not what MAM feels is best in general, but why...specifically...you feel that way. You spoke about consensus, yes, so I'm trying to understand why you broke consensus, which comes back to listing specific concerns. I respect you as a mother and what MAM has done for our community, and I am trying to gain some different perspective here and a better understanding.

Speaking as a mom, I can certainly try to change the outcome of the bill in the House by writing my representatives and providing specific concerns. But I'm afraid telling them what I like about the bill will only get me a reply of ‘thanks.’ If you’d like to know what I feel the benefits would be, here is a link. http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/caa.php.

I feel this exchange has become a waste of time, which was the exact opposite of my intention.

Best,

Lori

On 8/28/06 11:31 AM, " Medlin " <angelamedlin@...> wrote:

Lori:

Again, my post was about the consensus process.

You stated in your post, " 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 you truly want to know, why not just address the question to everyone on this list instead of just me? Open it up to a group discussion?

I think if you want to discuss this start off by explaining how you feel it would benefit mercury injured children then let anyone who wants to express their thoughts post them back.

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]

That's really an excellent point.

Remove all language for scientific research. The scientific research will be corrupted so why bother. It will only hurt.

Make it only an Autism Speaks type of bill- which spreads awareness, hopefully gets money to families in need.

Try to do the research ourselves.

Try to get Sweden, France and Germany to help provide further research on a national level (forget Britain- that system may be more corrupt than here).

Get honest universities and honest researchers in the US to help.

Avoid any possibility that the research, as lynn so clearly telegraphs, will go to finding that non-existent, but critically desirable (for the mercury deniers) "autism gene" target.

That way at least they won't be able to use the CAA to fund scientific corruption.

Safeminds statement on CAA

Mark Blaxill wrote:

"The Consensus Bill was a negotiated document, one all the groups could sign up to, but not one we could ever have reasonably expected Congress to accept unchanged in all its particulars. I understand and respect the decision of some groups to drawn the line narrowly around the Consensus Bill language."

---------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

I have tremendous respect for Mark Blaxill and "Safeminds" org. Unfortately, it is precisely because I hold them in such high regard that makes my disappointment in their continuing support of C.A.A. so difficult to accept. Such is not the case with Autism Speaks and ASA.

In any event, if memory serves me right, I believe it was Dr. Bernard Rimland that offered the very first negative comments when he learned The Consensus Bill "could never have reasonably expected Congress to accept unchanged in all its particulars". I think he suggested the bill should be re-named the "Autism Awareness Act" instead.

I may be wrong in assuming it was Dr. Rimland that suggested the bill be re-named, but, I could easily support doing so since the essential weapons to "combat" autism have been skillfully removed. They have been replaced with priorities that more accurately relfect "Awareness" the autism epidemic is real and our country has finally accepted it's responsibility to provide crucial resources to families who struggle with the devastating daily consequences of coping with this national tragedy.

Unfortunately, the purpose of all that time and energy seeking a "negotiated document all groups could sign onto" was wasted because some at the table believed "it would never be acceptable to Congress in all it's particulars". Not only was that time "wasted", it has also become the source for division among a community that simply cannot afford to be divided in their purpose. I suspect a consensus could have been easily reached had the original bill not sought to stress "combat" but "awareness" instead.

I don't care on which side of this issue you fall upon, there are some very good things in this bill that will benefit the entire autism community. But, I am angry we were forced to "surrender" critical areas of scientific research to areas that have failed for decades to identify the "environmental trigger" that everyone now acknowledges launched the autism epidemic. I am angry the word "combat" in this bill represents more pretense than reality. It is now an "awareness" bill and it should be identified as such.

Webster's defines "combat" as: 1. armed figthing; battle 2.any struggle or conflict.

With this definition in hand, the bills (HR 5887 & 5940) offered by Weldon and Maloney in the House would be considered true "weapons to combat autism".

Perhaps Sen. Santorum and others can "compromise" the word "combat" in their bill in favor of a more realistic term, such as, "awareness".

The word "combat" is defined by Webster's as: 1. armed figthing; battle, 2. any struggle or conflict

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, we need the goverment's money. Do you think we

can collect almost 1 billion dollars in 5 years??? Even the mighty

Autism Speaks can't do that!

>

>

> > 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:

>

[Guest guest]

" mommiepie2000 " ,

First, those who begin from the premise that a

thing CANNOT be done are doomed to fail.

Second the CAA does NOT provide any dollars it

only authorizes/limits/directs such spending

a funding bill is needed and the administration's

willingness to spend the funds Congress allocates

in its psending bills are needed.

Given that there are at least 12 million

neurodevelopmentally damaged children with parents

grandparents, aunts and uncles, getting ONLY 10%

of the at least 36 million concerned adults to

commit to contributing at least $10.00 per month

would translate into $432,000,000.00 (423 million

dollars a year) or, over 5 years, $2.16 BILLION

dollars over 5 years.

Rather than starting from the premise that it is

NOT doable, those with damaged autism spectrun

damaged children need to reach out to the groups

with lesser damaged (ADD, ADHD, OCD, etc) children

and form an " umbrella " NDD charity dedicated

to finding better therapies than psychotropic drugs

and finding and eliminating the root causes of all

of these neuriodevelopmental and behavioral disorders.

Moreover, since this group would have no expensive

administrative overhead and would be dedicated to

helping rather spending funds on non-productive

activities, this charity should be able to accomplish

most what is needed with much less than the government

is " authorizing. "

If you do NOT understand that the federal goivernment

is not really interested in finding the root causes

for your child's damage, you need only look at the

billions that have been spent on " AIDS " -- billions

that have effectively only produced ever more expensive

treatments that benefit the healthcare establishment

much more than they do the public.

Hopefully you and all who read this post will " get it "

and start raising the funds needed rather than relying

on the government to do research that will prove that

it and the healthcare establishment are KNOWINGLY

responsible for the harm inflicted on millions of

children (through the childood vaccination programs

that now include the Thimerosal-preserved inactivated-

influenza vaccines) and adults (through the Thimerosal-

preserved tetanus shots and, more recently, the

Thimerosal-preserved inactivated-influenza shots

[Alzheimers]) from the 1930s!!! onwards.

Respectfully,

Dr. King

http://www.dr-king.com

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

At 22:59 8/29/06 -0000, mommiepie2000 wrote:

>

> Unfortunately, we need the goverment's money.

>Do you think we can collect almost 1 billion

>dollars in 5 years??? Even the mighty Autism

>Speaks can't do that!

>

>

>>

>>

>> > 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:

>>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't think we need a billion to have enough research to prove the

link, all we really need is one major study of immunized vs.

unimmunized. Ain't no way that would cost a billion. Okay, if we need

a few more studies we still aren't anywhere close to a billion.

There's already 56 pages of pubmed showing countless studies

confirming all the aspects of autism and each one is correlated

numerous times with mercury.

And again, why would I expect the gov to create legislation to prove

themselves are the cause?

Debi

>

> Unfortunately, we need the goverment's money. Do you think we

> can collect almost 1 billion dollars in 5 years??? Even the mighty

> Autism Speaks can't do that!

>

>

[Guest guest]

You are brilliant in your common sense analysis.

Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated would tell it all.

It would tell you that there is or isnt a difference between the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. It would tell you the extent of the difference.

It would tell you it is or ins't a result of an autism gene.

You only need the billions to create more and more complex bullsh__ to dazzle and gull the public into thinking something is what it is not. The billions for research will simply create more corrupted science which is forced through the prism of a political agenda to make sure that vaccines and mercury in vaccines are not shown to cause autism.

lynn already has told you how the CAA will be used and what the results are/will be- to make sure those crazy little people with their tragic little theories are shown to be wrong, because we in the know understand that it is the autism gene. You see, the "every child by two" program she created couldnt possibly be a cause of the problem because she is only for what is good and right.

And you thought lynn was one of or cared about the little people.

And they will have billions to spend on charts and graphs and western blots and gene sequences and supercomputer analysis identifying regions of homology and variants and deletions and isozymes and all of the other nonsense that will say nothing, but will completely gull the public and which you will be unable to refute. And the dolts in the media will pounce on this nonsense to make it far more difficult for you to have the truth come out. I understand that certain reporters from the NYTimes may already be on the case. This is why Santorum and Frist support this bill in its present form.

Except for Debi's common sense analysis. Why spend billions when for 3 cents on the dollar you can actually determine what is true?

Why not just turn CAA into autism awareness with most of the money going to the families to help them with the financial pressures they face? The research dollars are a recipe for a politically agenda driven fait accompli. Your government scientists are/will be unable to deal with this issue honestly even if they wanted to because of the intense political pressure to have a particular result- to your detriment. The wizard of Oz will have his way. Its as simple as that.

By changing it to awareness, rather than corrupted research, it seems virtually all of the disagreements with the present bill evaporate.

Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

I don't think we need a billion to have enough research to prove thelink, all we really need is one major study of immunized vs.unimmunized. Ain't no way that would cost a billion. Okay, if we needa few more studies we still aren't anywhere close to a billion.There's already 56 pages of pubmed showing countless studiesconfirming all the aspects of autism and each one is correlatednumerous times with mercury. And again, why would I expect the gov to create legislation to provethemselves are the cause? Debi>> Unfortunately, we need the goverment's money. Do you think we > can collect almost 1 billion dollars in 5 years??? Even the mighty > Autism Speaks can't do that! > >

[Guest guest]

Perhaps you dont need the governments research money to corrupt the science on this issue.

Re: Safeminds statement on CAA

Unfortunately, we need the goverment's money. Do you think we can collect almost 1 billion dollars in 5 years??? Even the mighty Autism Speaks can't do that! >> > > 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:>