Re: Not understanding - summary of findings

[Guest guest]

Steve, Just curious to know how three lawyers happened upon you or had knowledge of your situation and thus, solicited you. I find that interesting becuase for many, at this point, it has been difficult to find attorneys to take their cases because litigation has been at a total standstill for so many years. Thanks , maurinescd7131 <steve.dionne@...> wrote: An Open Post to all Members of EOH - First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal experiences,

many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea how much information I stood to gain.Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil of skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely certain that the link will ever be proven.Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at least a small increased

percentage of another autistic child. I will not increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his early years, more research comes to light that convinces me otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if change is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility towards the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I recommend caution in taking the position that the "opposition" - in this case those

who do not believe as you do - merits "suspicion" and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully that caused me to change my mind.Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute, hopefully, to the information shared in this group.Steve

We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to .

[Guest guest]

Steve,

That is exactly how I came to my decision to not vaccinate my eight month old child at this time. I looked at both sides and knew that I couldn't risk damaging my baby like it did my other two kids.

I pray that all parents get all the information out there so they have the opportunity to make an informed decision. I wish I had that opportunity with my older kids. All I got was a piece of paper telling me that some possible side affects would be high fever and some irritability. That's it. I also wasn't aware that military hospitals stock piled mercury containing vaccines and my older children got the full dose of mercury at each vaccine visit. They were born and vaccinated in a military hospital.

I wish you and your family the best and congratulations on your soon to be here baby .

Vivian

Not understanding - summary of findings

An Open Post to all Members of EOH - First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea how much information I stood to gain.Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil of skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely certain that the link will ever be proven.Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at least a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his early years, more research comes to light that convinces me otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if change is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility towards the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I recommend caution in taking the position that the "opposition" - in this case those who do not believe as you do - merits "suspicion" and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully that caused me to change my mind.Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute, hopefully, to the information shared in this group.Steve

[Guest guest]

Maurine -

Two of the lawyers who contacted me worked for the same law firm,

but in different counties. One was in San Diego, CA and the other

in Temecula, CA. The other one is the parent of a newly (at the

time) diagnosed set of twins who use the same ABA provider we do and

who we met during Saturday morning " parent training " classes. So,

the statement I made would be more accurate if I had said one large

law firm and one independent attorney.

Steve

> An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

> First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

> experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues

> related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea

> how much information I stood to gain.

> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone

> who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

> mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

> various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil

of

> skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily

> shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

> through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely

certain

> that the link will ever be proven.

> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and

> we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

> December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

> factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at

least

> a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not

> increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his

> early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

> otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate

> law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

> suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

> that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if

change

> is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

> lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

>

> There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility

towards

> the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

> what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

> such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

> recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " -

in

> this case those who do not believe as you do - merits " suspicion "

> and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

> had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left

> completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those

> of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

> that caused me to change my mind.

>

> Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute,

> hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

>

> Steve

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to

.

>

[Guest guest]

Why is litigation at a standstill? I would expect a tremendous push

by the lawyers at this point?

Steve

> An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

> First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

> experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues

> related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea

> how much information I stood to gain.

> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone

> who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

> mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

> various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil

of

> skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily

> shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

> through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely

certain

> that the link will ever be proven.

> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and

> we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

> December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

> factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at

least

> a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not

> increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his

> early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

> otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate

> law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

> suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

> that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if

change

> is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

> lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

>

> There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility

towards

> the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

> what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

> such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

> recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " -

in

> this case those who do not believe as you do - merits " suspicion "

> and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

> had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left

> completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those

> of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

> that caused me to change my mind.

>

> Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute,

> hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

>

> Steve

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to

.

>

[Guest guest]

And despite laboring for years (5 years and counting), and expending

enormous sums of money on difficult litigation, no lawyer has lined his

pocket with one penny from these cases. If there are parties

responsible for devastating permanent injuries to children would you

have them go unrepresented and uncompensated for their injuries. It is

painfully obvious that no one will provide the resources for our

children without forcing them to do so, whether it is through the

political process or the courts.

On Oct 28, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Maurine Meleck wrote:

> Steve,

> Just curious to know how three lawyers happened upon you or had

> knowledge of your situation and thus, solicited you.  I find that

> interesting becuase for many, at this point, it has been difficult to

> find attorneys to take their cases because  litigation has been at a

> total standstill for so many years.  Thanks , maurine

>

> scd7131 <steve.dionne@...> wrote:

>> An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

>> First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

>> experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues

>> related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea

>> how much information I stood to gain.

>> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone

>> who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

>> mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

>> various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil of

>> skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily

>> shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

>> through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely certain

>> that the link will ever be proven.

>> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and

>> we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

>> December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

>> factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at least

>> a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not

>> increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his

>> early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

>> otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

>> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate

>> law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

>> suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

>> that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if change

>> is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

>> lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

>>

>> There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility towards

>> the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

>> what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

>> such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

>> recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " - in

>> this case those who do not believe as you do - merits " suspicion "

>> and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

>> had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left

>> completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those

>> of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

>> that caused me to change my mind.

>>

>> Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute,

>> hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

>>

>> Steve

>>

>

> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to

> .

>

>

J. Krakow

Attorney At Law

2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite N125

Lake Success, New York 11042

(516) 354-3300

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

(212) 227-0600 (NYC telephone)

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the post. The suspicions you raised are a function of the history of this group and the battle that this group wages. This group has to be very skeptical because this group battles goliath, and lies and deceit and in some cases, outright criminal behavior. It is rampant on this issue. It is extremely politically and emotionally charged.

Your initial threads brought out, for some, including me, a reflection of the history of some recent posts by "contributors" who clearly were attempting to prosletyze. Although attempting to change this group's mind is like the devil speaking to the choir, nonetheless that has been attempted. Usually responding to these people is a waste of time.

Suspicion emerges from having been burned by the very agencies and professionals who trade off the public trust and have breached the public trust. And by way of personal history.

So to the extent there was initial suspicion and skepticism, that suspicion and skepticism is extremely healthy, given what we know and what we have experienced.

That said, to those who are genuinely attempting to understand this issue, and wish to ingenuously inquire about issues associated with autism, we applaud you.

Not understanding - summary of findings

An Open Post to all Members of EOH - First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea how much information I stood to gain.Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil of skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely certain that the link will ever be proven.Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at least a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his early years, more research comes to light that convinces me otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if change is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility towards the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I recommend caution in taking the position that the "opposition" - in this case those who do not believe as you do - merits "suspicion" and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully that caused me to change my mind.Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute, hopefully, to the information shared in this group.Steve

[Guest guest]

http://hatingautism.blogspot.com/

Steve, This group is monitored by a group of people called

Neurodiversity who are opposed to anyone curing autism. Once in a

while, one of them comes here to start trouble. You can learn more

about them at the above link.

>

> Thanks for the post. The suspicions you raised are a function of

the history of this group and the battle that this group wages. This

group has to be very skeptical because this group battles goliath,

and lies and deceit and in some cases, outright criminal behavior.

It is rampant on this issue. It is extremely politically and

emotionally charged.

>

> Your initial threads brought out, for some, including me, a

reflection of the history of some recent posts by " contributors " who

clearly were attempting to prosletyze. Although attempting to change

this group's mind is like the devil speaking to the choir,

nonetheless that has been attempted. Usually responding to these

people is a waste of time.

>

> Suspicion emerges from having been burned by the very agencies and

professionals who trade off the public trust and have breached the

public trust. And by way of personal history.

>

> So to the extent there was initial suspicion and skepticism, that

suspicion and skepticism is extremely healthy, given what we know and

what we have experienced.

>

> That said, to those who are genuinely attempting to understand this

issue, and wish to ingenuously inquire about issues associated with

autism, we applaud you.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Not understanding - summary of findings

>

>

> An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

> First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

> experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues

> related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea

> how much information I stood to gain.

> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone

> who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

> mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

> various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil

of

> skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not

easily

> shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

> through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely

certain

> that the link will ever be proven.

> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife,

and

> we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

> December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

> factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at

least

> a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will

not

> increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in

his

> early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

> otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate

> law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

> suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

> that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if

change

> is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

> lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

>

> There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility

towards

> the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

> what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

> such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

> recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " -

in

> this case those who do not believe as you do - merits " suspicion "

> and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

> had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left

> completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is

those

> of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

> that caused me to change my mind.

>

> Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to

contribute,

> hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

>

> Steve

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Steve. I've noticed no one has responded to your concern about

people on this list being suspicious. Long story short, some people

who have joined this list were NOT self-advocates or advocates of

people with autism and it was obvious.

Welcome to the group,

Carolyn

a.k.a. Kurt's mom

www.asno.org

> An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

> First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

> experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues

> related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea

> how much information I stood to gain.

> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone

> who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

> mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

> various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil

of

> skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily

> shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

> through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely certain

> that the link will ever be proven.

> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and

> we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

> December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

> factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at least

> a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not

> increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his

> early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

> otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate

> law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

> suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

> that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if

change

> is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

> lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

>

> There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility

towards

> the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

> what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

> such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

> recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " - in

> this case those who do not believe as you do - merits " suspicion "

> and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

> had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left

> completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those

> of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

> that caused me to change my mind.

>

> Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute,

> hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

>

> Steve

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to

.

>

[Guest guest]

Steve,

I’m glad

some information that was posted was helpful to you. I did want to send

you in some directions in specific for your son. You mentioned his

regression came after the chicken pox vaccine if I remember. Dan Olmstead

has had several articles relating to regression with the MMR and varicella together

(it’s the POX series). They are specific to your son’s

case. Dr. Amy Yasko has written a really great summary on DNA and RNA

viruses. Viruses, heavy metals, yeast and bacteria all have an affinity

for one another. If you like you may e-mail me offline and I will find it

for you. I’m very happy for you that your son is doing better with

therapies because not all of us have been that fortunate. My son is 6 and

we always seem to go back to ground zero because he has so many issues but the

search is so well worth it. Take care,

PS. My son looooves the computer too

and has also taught himself a wealth of nick jr, Disney, noggin, and PBS

games.

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of scd7131

Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006

8:48 PM

EOHarm

Subject: Not

understanding - summary of findings

An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues

related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea

how much information I stood to gain.

Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone

who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil of

skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily

shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely certain

that the link will ever be proven.

Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and

we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at least

a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not

increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his

early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate

law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if change

is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility towards

the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " - in

this case those who do not believe as you do - merits " suspicion "

and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left

completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those

of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

that caused me to change my mind.

Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute,

hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi, Steve - Thanks for joining EOH. I have a few other observations.

(1) As the saying goes, genetics loads the gun and toxins pull the

trigger. Medical tests of your child are the only way to detect

mercury toxicity, and then chelation will indicate whether

the " autistic " symptoms abate.

(2) Your wife may be mercury toxic. Many moms on this list and

others share anecdotal evidence showing consistent frequency of

disorders such as Parkinson's, depression, fibromyalgia, etc. We had

mouthfuls of mercury amalgam tooth fillings, RhoGam, consumed tuna --

multiple exposures, and intergenerational.

(3) Forcing eye contact may reduce your " autistic " child's ability

to hear you. Some children's sensory integration is damaged, so they

can only perform one intake at a time, or with specific stimuli...

e.g., my son hears best when he is looking away and fidgeting with a

small toy, and sees best when sounds are minimal.

(4) DAN! doctors are a mixed bag, so many parents rely on others'

anecdotes to weed out the profiteers. Also the DAN! chelation

protocol has been criticized by those on the

listserv as not being weight-based or timed to allow for the

chelator's half life.

(5) I'm sorry that your questions have sometimes been met with

suspicion and/or hostility. Those of us who've kept a finger on the

political pulse have been burned more than once.

- Hokkanen

>

> An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

> First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

> experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues

> related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea

> how much information I stood to gain.

> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone

> who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

> mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

> various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil

of

> skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not

easily

> shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

> through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely

certain

> that the link will ever be proven.

> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and

> we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

> December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

> factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at

least

> a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will

not

> increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in

his

> early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

> otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate

> law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

> suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

> that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if

change

> is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

> lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

>

> There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility

towards

> the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

> what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

> such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

> recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " -

in

> this case those who do not believe as you do - merits " suspicion "

> and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

> had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left

> completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is

those

> of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

> that caused me to change my mind.

>

> Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute,

> hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

>

> Steve

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks. Your response and Kendra's help me to understand what the

tone of strife of strife came from. Perhaps I shuld not be so

defensive.

It may come as no surprise that I have also engaged in information-

gathering and looked into the findings of the other " side " of this

argument. As I have found with this group, I found them to be

intelligent, very focussed on the welfare of their and others'

children, and full of unassailable positions backed by the facts

they choose to favor over others. The common thread was healthy

debate and I gave them every opportunity to convince me as I have

done with you all.

What I have settled on is this. From your " side " of the argument:

no vaccines for my kids. A wary eye cast on CDC/Government. A

consideration of GFCF, even though my son has no gut issues and is

improving nicely with b-mod approach. From their side of the

argument: careful avoidance of negative language when discussing

effects of autism on people's lives - individuals or family members,

an emphasis on listening to autistics themselves for answers about

the condition, careful avoidance of any treatment that could

inadvertently harm by boy.

I did not realize how deep the division ran between these two camps,

but I hope that, moving into the future, a reconciliation could be

made to the benefit of everyone. This is a very emotionally charged

issue, which certainly makes it harder.

Thanks again,

Steve

>

> Thanks for the post. The suspicions you raised are a function of

the history of this group and the battle that this group wages.

This group has to be very skeptical because this group battles

goliath, and lies and deceit and in some cases, outright criminal

behavior. It is rampant on this issue. It is extremely politically

and emotionally charged.

>

> Your initial threads brought out, for some, including me, a

reflection of the history of some recent posts by " contributors " who

clearly were attempting to prosletyze. Although attempting to

change this group's mind is like the devil speaking to the choir,

nonetheless that has been attempted. Usually responding to these

people is a waste of time.

>

> Suspicion emerges from having been burned by the very agencies and

professionals who trade off the public trust and have breached the

public trust. And by way of personal history.

>

> So to the extent there was initial suspicion and skepticism, that

suspicion and skepticism is extremely healthy, given what we know

and what we have experienced.

>

> That said, to those who are genuinely attempting to understand

this issue, and wish to ingenuously inquire about issues associated

with autism, we applaud you.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Not understanding - summary of findings

>

>

> An Open Post to all Members of EOH -

> First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal

> experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the

issues

> related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no

idea

> how much information I stood to gain.

> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to

anyone

> who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about

> mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the

> various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the

veil of

> skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not

easily

> shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing

> through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely

certain

> that the link will ever be proven.

> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife,

and

> we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in

> December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic

> factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at

least

> a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will

not

> increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in

his

> early years, more research comes to light that convinces me

> otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.

> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three

separate

> law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are

> suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly

> that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if

change

> is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by

> lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.

>

> There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility

towards

> the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of

> what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in

> such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I

> recommend caution in taking the position that the " opposition " -

in

> this case those who do not believe as you do -

merits " suspicion "

> and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group

> had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be

left

> completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is

those

> of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully

> that caused me to change my mind.

>

> Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to

contribute,

> hopefully, to the information shared in this group.

>

> Steve

>

[Guest guest]

Both groups (sides) "got religion."

The key difference is that ours is a reformed religion that has gone through a "schism" and is more open to suggestion and research. But it has to be trustworthy and nothing coming from the fundamentalists on the other side is trustworthy at this point. It wreaks of self-interest, obvious manipulation and medical dogma. No one can challenge the dogma or that person is destroyed. I like to think we are more open- obviously very, very critical- but more open.

Theirs is a corrupt fundamentalism which will not even debate the issue or look for solutions- because they already know the answers- and they do not like them.

If you speak to pediatricians on this issue- most of them are in such denial you'd think they were on tricyclic antidepressants.

Not understanding - summary of findings> > > An Open Post to all Members of EOH - > First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal > experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues > related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea > how much information I stood to gain.> Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone > who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about > mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the > various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil of > skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not easily > shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing > through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely certain > that the link will ever be proven.> Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and > we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in > December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic > factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at least > a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will not > increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in his > early years, more research comes to light that convinces me > otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.> At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate > law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever it is they are > suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly > that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if change > is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by > lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.> > There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility towards > the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of > what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in > such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I > recommend caution in taking the position that the "opposition" - in > this case those who do not believe as you do - merits "suspicion" > and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group > had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be left > completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is those > of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully > that caused me to change my mind.> > Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute, > hopefully, to the information shared in this group.> > Steve>

[Guest guest]

Wow - thanks, ! I really appreciate the kind words! And

you are right - there is such a preponderance of information that I

don't know how anyone can possibly sort it all out. I guess what we

all resort to in the end is making what we feel are the best

decisions based on gut feel, after having digested all the relevant

info.

Thanks again.

Steve

>

> I love that Steve has reached out for new knowledge. Bravo Steve

for trying

> to process both sides and make the best decision you can for your

family.

> It is often SO OVERWHELMING to come to an educated decision

today. So much

> information, so much misinformation, so many lies and truths

mixed up together.

> No matter how bright and educated you are..it is a difficult

road to travel

> while caring for a family that may have issues in the autism

spectrum.

>

> SO BRAVO Steve! No hostility here...just glad that someone had

the guts to

> ask intelligent questions...and be open to read all of them!

>

> Good luck to you and your family...and congratulations on your

imminent

> arrival. Take care of yourselves...and I for one look forward to

sharing more

> with you in the future!

>

> God Bless, >llll>

>

> -Ohio

>

[Guest guest]

Steve, Toxins cause the lactose intolerance-nobody said lactose was a toxin. Maurinescd7131 <steve.dionne@...> wrote: - These are very interesting points.To answer them:(1) At this point, my position is that "genetics loads the gun, andan environmental contributor pulls the trigger." I am not 100% sold on the toxin issue. An example of what I mean would be lactose-intolerance. Big problem for some people, but not a toxin. I still think the jury is out on

specifically what causes autism.(2) I appreciate your concern, but I do not believe my wife is mercury toxic. No RhoGam, no fillings, no psychiatric or health issues that are chronic or notable, hates seafood, etc. Highly unlikely.(3) I know this to be true, but it does not seem to be the case for our son. He does have a number of sensory issues, for which we have adhered to the "sensory diet" for the past 2 years. If anyone would like info on this technique, which has been really helpful for our son, please let me know.(4) Though my first experience with a Dan! doctor was really poor, and I have seen numerous accounts of other such experiences which were bad, I do not apply the "bad" label to all Dan! doctors. My guess is that we would find precisley the same ratio of quality people to shmucks in the Dan! community as we would find in virtually any other subset of society at large.(5) I understand much better

now, and regret my earlier defensiveness about that. Bottom line is this is - to coin a football phrase - your "house" and I am a visitor. Thanks,Steve> >> > An Open Post to all Members of EOH - > > First of all, thank you all for your insights, shared personal > > experiences, many links, and intelligent discussion of the issues > > related to my questions. When I sent my first post, I had no idea > > how much information I stood to gain.> > Prior to joining this group, it would not be a surprise to anyone > > who read my posts that I was highly skeptical about > > mercury/vaccinations directly causing autism. As I explored the > > various articles, studies, etc. that you all sent to me, the veil > of > > skepticism has lifted somewhat. I am a stubborn guy and not > easily > >

shaken from beliefs that I spent the last two years developing > > through my own research. As such, I am still not absolutely > certain > > that the link will ever be proven.> > Having said that, I talked this whole thing over with my wife, and > > we have decided NOT to vaccinate our third boy, who is due in > > December. I am quite certain that there is some type of genetic > > factor in the formation of autism, so our family is facing at > least > > a small increased percentage of another autistic child. I will > not > > increase the risk of that happening by vaccinating him. If, in > his > > early years, more research comes to light that convinces me > > otherwise, I will go ahead with it then.> > At the same time, though we have been solicited by three separate > > law firms to join a suit against, well, whomever

it is they are > > suing, our family will not support such action. I feel strongly > > that lawsuits such as this do far more harm than good, and if > change > > is necessary there are far better ways to accomplish it than by > > lining the pockets of the trial lawyers.> > > > There are a few of you who expressed thinly veiled hostility > towards > > the questions I was asking. Suspicious, you say. Suspicious of > > what, exactly? I am confused by that, especially as it comes in > > such contrast to the great majority of people who replied. I > > recommend caution in taking the position that the "opposition" - > in > > this case those who do not believe as you do - merits "suspicion" > > and prejudice. I can assure you that if all members of the group > > had approached my questions the same way you did, I would be

left > > completely unconvinced of the theories supported here. It is > those > > of you - most of you - who responded positively and thoughtfully > > that caused me to change my mind.> > > > Thanks again to everyone, and I hope I can continue to contribute, > > hopefully, to the information shared in this group.> > > > Steve> >>

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business.