Re: The Gay Republicans of Autism

[Guest guest]

what you say.. seems soo true.. Peace, lia

[Guest guest]

Out them!

On Dec 6, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Gilmore wrote:

I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican

politician. There are lots gay Republican politicians, but to be a good

Republican these days you have to denounce anything that smacks of

homosexuality. This, of course, leads to all kinds of hypocrisy. The

gay community is divided about whether these people should be outed or

not.

 

We have a similar problem in the autism movement, and those are the

leaders of large autism organizations who refuse to acknowledge that

there is an epidemic, refuse to spend any of the money that they have

extracted from this community on anything related to vaccine safety

issues, mercury or any of the methodologies being investigated by DAN

and related researchers.

 

But at the same time they are taking their own afffected children to

DAN doctors, chelating their kids, getting them scoped by Wakefield or

Krigsman, and refusing vaccines for their children. Are they liars?

Are they hypocrites? Are they the people who will get us to where we

need to go? And what should be done by the rest of us with our own " gay

Republicans. " Should we ask them to explain themselves? Is the

discrepancy between their public actions and statements and their

private actions anybody else's business. Are we not allowed to ask them

what they are doing in Arthur Krigsman's waiting room when their

organizations won't even acknowledge that GI issues are part of autism.

Are we being complict in hypocrisy by remaining silent?

[Guest guest]

>

> I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican

politician.

Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little depressed to me.

Lenny

[Guest guest]

>

> I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican

politician.

Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little depressed to me.

Lenny

[Guest guest]

Liars? Yes, Hypocrites? Yes.

Will they get us anywhere? No, they're taking us backwards.

What should be done?

"Out" them.

The Gay Republicans of Autism

I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican politician. There are lots gay Republican politicians, but to be a good Republican these days you have to denounce anything that smacks of homosexuality. This, of course, leads to all kinds of hypocrisy. The gay community is divided about whether these people should be outed or not.

We have a similar problem in the autism movement, and those are the leaders of large autism organizations who refuse to acknowledge that there is an epidemic, refuse to spend any of the money that they have extracted from this community on anything related to vaccine safety issues, mercury or any of the methodologies being investigated by DAN and related researchers.

But at the same time they are taking their own afffected children to DAN doctors, chelating their kids, getting them scoped by Wakefield or Krigsman, and refusing vaccines for their children. Are they liars? Are they hypocrites? Are they the people who will get us to where we need to go? And what should be done by the rest of us with our own "gay Republicans." Should we ask them to explain themselves? Is the discrepancy between their public actions and statements and their private actions anybody else's business. Are we not allowed to ask them what they are doing in Arthur Krigsman's waiting room when their organizations won't even acknowledge that GI issues are part of autism. Are we being complict in hypocrisy by remaining silent?

[Guest guest]

Let me know who they are - I haven't had many relations since Mark

Foley resigned...

> >

> > I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican

> politician.

>

>

> Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little depressed to me.

>

> Lenny

>

[Guest guest]

, you may want to look up Ted Haggard, I hear he is avaible and

drinks Schlitz...

> > >

> > > I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican

> > politician.

> >

> >

> > Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little depressed to me.

> >

> > Lenny

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Been there, done that...

> > > >

> > > > I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay

Republican

> > > politician.

> > >

> > >

> > > Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little depressed to

me.

> > >

> > > Lenny

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Correction - Been there, done that, got the " God told me to hate

you " T-shirt

> > > > >

> > > > > I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay

> Republican

> > > > politician.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little depressed

to

> me.

> > > >

> > > > Lenny

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You talking about a late-night rendezvous with fred phelps? DOn't you

all know he's gay...

Debi

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay

> > Republican

> > > > > politician.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little depressed

> to

> > me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lenny

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Oh yeah - Binky... I remember him well

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay

> > > Republican

> > > > > > politician.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little

depressed

> > to

> > > me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lenny

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You think I'm kidding about the T-shirt...

http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers.22942562

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay

> > > Republican

> > > > > > politician.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Gay Republicans? Lately they've seemed a little

depressed

> > to

> > > me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lenny

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

my two cents:

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2006/12/outing-gay-republicans-of-autism.html

I have been thinkin' a little about this and here are my initial

thoughts.

I am thinking there are two different ethical scenarios. Because we

are talking about children's medical information, I think that we need

to be sure we don't step on children's rights.

I am thinking if a parent tells someone in confidence about their

child's treatment, and asks that you keep it private, regardless of

their public stance, you should not break that trust, unless there is

some sort of mistreatment of a specific child going on.

However,

If you see a parent in a waiting room, I think that asking the

question, "Why are you not preaching what you practice", is legit. I

think that question should be asked in private first to give them the

chance to really do some self-examination about the impact of their

decision to with hold vital information from other parents who are

looking to them as leaders for some direction as to what they should do

for their own child.

But if they are given that opportunity and sufficient time to really

come around, then I don't think I could condemn anyone who 'outed' them.

I think about this in the context of my own blogging. Now head of a

multi-million dollar autism organization I ain't, but I have put myself

(and my child to some extent) out in public. I have made myself a

public figure (in the legal sense) by blogging. If I am unwilling to

open myself up to scrutiny on the issues that I bring to the table,

then I have no integrity.

If I encourage parents to look in one direction for treatment while I

am pursuing another for my child, then shame on me.

....your thoughts?

H wrote:

Liars? Yes, Hypocrites? Yes.

Will they get us anywhere? No,

they're taking us backwards.

What should be done?

"Out" them.

-----

Original Message -----

From:

Gilmore

To:

achamp ;

mia_mercuryinducedautism

; EOHarm

Sent:

Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:28 PM

Subject:

The Gay Republicans of Autism

I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay

Republican politician. There are lots gay Republican politicians, but

to be a good Republican these days you have to denounce anything that

smacks of homosexuality. This, of course, leads to all kinds of

hypocrisy. The gay community is divided about whether these people

should be outed or not.

We have a similar problem in the autism movement, and those

are the leaders of large autism organizations who refuse to acknowledge

that there is an epidemic, refuse to spend any of the money that they

have extracted from this community on anything related to vaccine

safety issues, mercury or any of the methodologies being investigated

by DAN and related researchers.

But at the same time they are taking their own afffected

children to DAN doctors, chelating their kids, getting them scoped by

Wakefield or Krigsman, and refusing vaccines for their children. Are

they liars? Are they hypocrites? Are they the people who will get us to

where we need to go? And what should be done by the rest of us with our

own "gay Republicans." Should we ask them to explain themselves?

Is the discrepancy between their public actions and statements and

their private actions anybody else's business. Are we not allowed to

ask them what they are doing in Arthur Krigsman's waiting room when

their organizations won't even acknowledge that GI issues are part of

autism. Are we being complict in hypocrisy by remaining silent?

[Guest guest]

That's a risk of democractic advocacy: movement institutionalization.

In a democracy, people generally get the leaders and organizations

they deserve.

There is a better way to short-cut the democratic process, but I think

I already used up all my three wishes.

Lenny

>

> I share 's frustration with " leaders of large autism

organizations " that

> have, for too long, withheld their resources from seeking the

" cause " of the

> autism epidemic.

>

> I hope I am wrong, but, ANY worthwhile cause must be alert to the

> destructive dynamics that threaten all " grassroots movements " . All

travel through the

> same paths to success or failure.

>

> First comes the " cause " that joins people together. It could be

anything,

> abortion, gun control, flag amendment, autism, etc. etc. As the

group grows

> in number, they become a " grass-roots movement " . The " movement " is

populated

> with committed activists but some are more well-spoken, photogenic,

> financially stable, educated, well-informed individuals and these

few begin attracting

> media attention, thereby gradually assuming leadership roles as

spokesmen

> for the entire " movement " .

>

> After a time, the " movement " reaches numbers that provide lucrative

> financial resources through fund-raising and awareness efforts. It

isn't long after

> the " grassroots movement has grown financially stable " that the

" movement "

> becomes a " business " in itself, the leaders responsible for the

disbursement of

> movement funds, the more funds, the more influence of the

movement's leaders.

>

> Eventually, the " business " ends up becoming a " scam " run by

" leaders " who

> have grown accustomed to the influence and profits of their

" movement " . The

> absolutely last thing they want is to have their " movement " succeed

and put

> themselves out of business.

>

> I am not saying this has happened to certain large autism

organizations,

> but, it is something our community must remain alert for. As

someone said, we

> should judge organizations the same as we judge people, it is not

what they

> say, it is what they do that counts.

>

[Guest guest]

I think 'outing' the autism hypocrites at the moment would be a

tactical mistake. Why? Well, we're not supposed to discuss tactics

and strategies on public lists amongst all you dumb unwashed masses.

Might tip our hand and all. You'll just have to trust me.

Lenny

p.s. Ginger, your thoughts are worth much more than 2 cents.

Re: The Gay Republicans of Autism

my two cents:

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2006/12/outing-gay-republicans-of-autism.\

html

I have been thinkin' a little about this and here are my initial thoughts.

I am thinking there are two different ethical scenarios. Because we

are talking about children's medical information, I think that we need

to be sure we don't step on children's rights.

I am thinking if a parent tells someone in confidence about their

child's treatment, and asks that you keep it private, regardless of

their public stance, you should not break that trust, unless there is

some sort of mistreatment of a specific child going on.

However,

If you see a parent in a waiting room, I think that asking the

question, " Why are you not preaching what you practice " , is legit. I

think that question should be asked in private first to give them the

chance to really do some self-examination about the impact of their

decision to with hold vital information from other parents who are

looking to them as leaders for some direction as to what they should

do for their own child.

But if they are given that opportunity and sufficient time to really

come around, then I don't think I could condemn anyone who 'outed' them.

I think about this in the context of my own blogging. Now head of a

multi-million dollar autism organization I ain't, but I have put

myself (and my child to some extent) out in public. I have made

myself a public figure (in the legal sense) by blogging. If I am

unwilling to open myself up to scrutiny on the issues that I bring to

the table, then I have no integrity.

If I encourage parents to look in one direction for treatment while I

am pursuing another for my child, then shame on me.

....your thoughts?

H wrote:

>

> Liars? Yes, Hypocrites? Yes.

> Will they get us anywhere? No, they're taking us backwards.

>

> What should be done?

>

> " Out " them.

[Guest guest]

Lenny, are you suggesting that we need to take baths?

Re: The Gay Republicans of Autism

I think 'outing' the autism hypocrites at the moment would be atactical mistake. Why? Well, we're not supposed to discuss tacticsand strategies on public lists amongst all you dumb unwashed masses. Might tip our hand and all. You'll just have to trust me.Lennyp.s. Ginger, your thoughts are worth much more than 2 cents.Re: The Gay Republicans of Autismmy two cents:http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2006/12/outing-gay-republicans-of-autism.htmlI have been thinkin' a little about this and here are my initial thoughts.I am thinking there are two different ethical scenarios. Because weare talking about children's medical information, I think that we needto be sure we don't step on children's rights.I am thinking if a parent tells someone in confidence about theirchild's treatment, and asks that you keep it private, regardless oftheir public stance, you should not break that trust, unless there issome sort of mistreatment of a specific child going on.However,If you see a parent in a waiting room, I think that asking thequestion, "Why are you not preaching what you practice", is legit. Ithink that question should be asked in private first to give them thechance to really do some self-examination about the impact of theirdecision to with hold vital information from other parents who arelooking to them as leaders for some direction as to what they shoulddo for their own child.But if they are given that opportunity and sufficient time to reallycome around, then I don't think I could condemn anyone who 'outed' them.I think about this in the context of my own blogging. Now head of amulti-million dollar autism organization I ain't, but I have putmyself (and my child to some extent) out in public. I have mademyself a public figure (in the legal sense) by blogging. If I amunwilling to open myself up to scrutiny on the issues that I bring tothe table, then I have no integrity.If I encourage parents to look in one direction for treatment while Iam pursuing another for my child, then shame on me....your thoughts?H wrote:>> Liars? Yes, Hypocrites? Yes.> Will they get us anywhere? No, they're taking us backwards.> > What should be done?> > "Out" them.

[Guest guest]

,

To take this one-step farther, my wife and I have believed for a VERY long time that thimerasol is only the tip of the iceberg so to speak. The vaccines themselves are a dangerous issue. Adding to the thimerasol there is (and I feel like I am preaching to the choir here) aluminum, formaldehyde anti-freeze, and I am certain some I am not even aware of. Then add the way these vaccines are made, using animal DNA and aborted fetal cell and you get a very dangerous commodity.

Also, consider the vaccine program itself. Beginning any kind of vaccination program before the age of 2 when the liver is developed enough to excrete toxins is stupid. In addition, the same dosing schedule is NOT tailored to each individual child but rather is a "cookie cutter" approach to vaccinating.

Many times my wife has tried to get involved with the organizations you refer to (CAN, NAA, UA, Autism Speaks, ASA) and she couldn't stomach the narrow mindedness of their leaders for 1.) Focusing exclusively on Thimerasol (those that did which wasn't many) and 2.) For being the hypocrites, they truly are.

Until people start to look at the big picture and see this for what it truly is, (vaccines as well as the environmental insults are genetically altering our DNA and there for altering the next generation) the passage of bills like CAA won't do a damn bit of good. And personally to pass that bill without the vaccine research language and with the removal of the 21 centers of excellence makes that bill nothing better than toilet paper!!

It is rather obvious to us here in Pennsylvania that we as parents are surrounded by a load of hypocritical, back stabbing traitors who say one thing and do the opposite. We don't have time for people like this in our life. I am so glad we saved our money (for our son's biomedical supplements) and put it to a much more worthy endeavor.

Respectfully,

Rodney E Delp Sr.

___________________________________________________________________________

>> I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican politician. There are lots gay Republican politicians, but to be a good Republican these days you have to denounce anything that smacks of homosexuality. This, of course, leads to all kinds of hypocrisy. The gay community is divided about whether these people should be outed or not.> > We have a similar problem in the autism movement, and those are the leaders of large autism organizations who refuse to acknowledge that there is an epidemic, refuse to spend any of the money that they have extracted from this community on anything related to vaccine safety issues, mercury or any of the methodologies being investigated by DAN and related researchers. > > But at the same time they are taking their own afffected children to DAN doctors, chelating their kids, getting them scoped by Wakefield or Krigsman, and refusing vaccines for their children. Are they liars? Are they hypocrites? Are they the people who will get us to where we need to go? And what should be done by the rest of us with our own "gay Republicans." Should we ask them to explain themselves? Is the discrepancy between their public actions and statements and their private actions anybody else's business. Are we not allowed to ask them what they are doing in Arthur Krigsman's waiting room when their organizations won't even acknowledge that GI issues are part of autism. Are we being complict in hypocrisy by remaining silent?>

[Guest guest]

I was watching the evening news on NBC and they did a story on the CAA. Ack. No mention of vaccines, of course. But Bob and were front and center. I made this from one of the comics on Mike Adam's website that was posted here earlier: