Re: Re: Benefit of Doubt

[Guest guest]

They eventually will (have to). It would be nice if it was more volitional and it occurred sooner.

Re: Benefit of Doubt

Yup - you raise very good points... I really wish I could wrap my mind around the motivations of the s, etc.To my own good fortune, I'm comfortably out of the DC debate, here in the outback of Eastern Washington State. However, given that Congress is in tremendous flux, I would imagine there will be appropriations opportunities and debates around the CAA "earmark" as well as more "politicing" to look forward to.My hope is that the s will very publicly and emphatically follow the lead of ASA and align the efforts of AS towards biomedical treatment as well as understanding the role of vaccines and additives in the etiology of autism. "Far be it from me to rush to the defense of Autism Speaks...."> > I suspect and I find ourselves in the same boat. He doesn't feel > comfortable "defending" Autism Speaks....and.....I don't feel comfortable > "attacking" them. Even so, the discussion is worth having, absent any personal > animous towards each other.> > writes: "Bob is not AS and vice versa. AS has a board of > directors and a scientifc advisory board".> > With all due respect to , I have never heard Bob or > distance themselves from Autism Speaks by suggesting the organization they founded > is really controlled by a completely independent Board of Directors, subject > to the "expert" opinions and influence of a scientific advisory board? > Indeed, I would have far more respect for Bob and had they done just > that. They didn't and I suspect no one was more disappointed they didn't > than Don and Diedre Imus. > > How is it possible that I find myself more aligned with two people, Don and > Diedre Imus, who both readily acknowledge they do not have a "dog in this > poker game", than I do with grandparents of a autistic grandchild exactly like > my own?> > Unfortunately, I do not share 's "hope" that the 's are fully > illuminated and that NAAR's "crappy genetic reductionist research, underwritten > by pharma and CDC approved" will finally be abandoned by Autism Speaks. > > My son, his wife, his youngest daughter , and most importantly, his > loveable seven year old, non-verbal, non-potty trained, autistic son Bobby, > ought not have been forced to wait, possibly five years, because the 's > were not "fully illuminated" when they allowed their organization to "speak" > for them.> > Nah, the time for "benefit of doubt" has long passed. The clock has begun > ticking.>

[Guest guest]

At some point you simply have to speak out for what is just. There are certain things in life you can't compromise on. Poisoning babies is one.

The Imuses get this and act appropriately. Deirdre is a hero to us all. She pulls no punches. And she is spot on. The Imuses can do this because this is what they do- Don Imus has become one of the most influential radio hosts precisely because he tells the truth. He is somewhat tempered on this issue (compared to Deirdre), but is still one of our true heroes. Deirdre obviously feels very compassionately about this issue because she really cares about kids- The Imus ranch for kids was her idea and it clearly shows. She is the childrens' angel. She is a lioness and she protects her cubs. For us all.

This society is now aware that autism is a major problem- thanks to Autism Speaks. We stand and applaud at great length. But there is an even more pressing problem to address.

Next up- why is there an autism epidemic? How do we cure it- how do we prevent it?

Relying on autism gene theory is tantamount to dumping sump water into a baby for three years and then blaming the baby for having the audacity to get sick from the poisons pumped into his/her body.

It is not just a canard. It is despicable.

Do the research on immune dysfunction/dysregulation and heavy metal toxicity. Research the vaccines and modify/eliminate vaccines that aren't safe and effective.

We don't need no more stinkin' DNA sequences.

Re: Benefit of Doubt

wrote: "Far be it from me to rush to the defense of Autism Speaks...."

I suspect and I find ourselves in the same boat. He doesn't feel comfortable "defending" Autism Speaks....and.....I don't feel comfortable "attacking" them. Even so, the discussion is worth having, absent any personal animous towards each other.

writes: "Bob is not AS and vice versa. AS has a board of directors and a scientifc advisory board".

With all due respect to , I have never heard Bob or distance themselves from Autism Speaks by suggesting the organization they founded is really controlled by a completely independent Board of Directors, subject to the "expert" opinions and influence of a scientific advisory board? Indeed, I would have far more respect for Bob and had they done just that. They didn't and I suspect no one was more disappointed they didn't than Don and Diedre Imus.

How is it possible that I find myself more aligned with two people, Don and Diedre Imus, who both readily acknowledge they do not have a "dog in this poker game", than I do with grandparents of a autistic grandchild exactly like my own?

Unfortunately, I do not share 's "hope" that the 's are fully illuminated and that NAAR's "crappy genetic reductionist research, underwritten by pharma and CDC approved" will finally be abandoned by Autism Speaks.

My son, his wife, his youngest daughter , and most importantly, his loveable seven year old, non-verbal, non-potty trained, autistic son Bobby, ought not have been forced to wait, possibly five years, because the 's were not "fully illuminated" when they allowed their organization to "speak" for them.

Nah, the time for "benefit of doubt" has long passed. The clock has begun ticking.

[Guest guest]

"Attacking" is not appropriate. But healthy criticism is.

Re: Benefit of Doubt

wrote: "Far be it from me to rush to the defense of Autism Speaks...."

I suspect and I find ourselves in the same boat. He doesn't feel comfortable "defending" Autism Speaks....and.....I don't feel comfortable "attacking" them. Even so, the discussion is worth having, absent any personal animous towards each other.

writes: "Bob is not AS and vice versa. AS has a board of directors and a scientifc advisory board".

With all due respect to , I have never heard Bob or distance themselves from Autism Speaks by suggesting the organization they founded is really controlled by a completely independent Board of Directors, subject to the "expert" opinions and influence of a scientific advisory board? Indeed, I would have far more respect for Bob and had they done just that. They didn't and I suspect no one was more disappointed they didn't than Don and Diedre Imus.

How is it possible that I find myself more aligned with two people, Don and Diedre Imus, who both readily acknowledge they do not have a "dog in this poker game", than I do with grandparents of a autistic grandchild exactly like my own?

Unfortunately, I do not share 's "hope" that the 's are fully illuminated and that NAAR's "crappy genetic reductionist research, underwritten by pharma and CDC approved" will finally be abandoned by Autism Speaks.

My son, his wife, his youngest daughter , and most importantly, his loveable seven year old, non-verbal, non-potty trained, autistic son Bobby, ought not have been forced to wait, possibly five years, because the 's were not "fully illuminated" when they allowed their organization to "speak" for them.

Nah, the time for "benefit of doubt" has long passed. The clock has begun ticking.