A Seat at the table...

[Guest guest]

My first IEP for Kolin, I read the rules, the law and the regulations. I had already consulted with doctors, read the books and had advocates with me to support me. I knew his rights, I knew what he needed. But there I was, just a parent, sitting at table with professionals who had already decided based on the documentation in front of them what was right for Kolin. They had only spent an hour with him. But they had their ideas based on other children what was effective and thus they created a program on what they had to offer, not on what Kolin needed. I spoke till I was blue in the face, I could not change their position, they were professionals, how dare I question them. Soon, I also became a professional, a professional advocate who attended meetings with parents and helped them successfully. However for Kolin’s IEP’s, I was still just a parent. It took a year and calling the state Dept of Ed to get them to listen to me, I knew my son and how to help him. They could see it in his changes at school and with me. But when it came to the purse strings, I was still the parent. I had no real say in these meetings. Many parents here have experienced this; we know what it is like to face a room

filled with professionals who look on you as only a parent. Your voice does not matter in the discussions, until you can prove to them it does. However if what you are saying costs them something, or flies in the face of accepted practice, you will be ignored until you bring in bigger guns or a higher authority who can revoke their funding. This is one of my fears of how the CAA is being handled. It appears (I may be wrong) these organizations, AS, CAN. ASA, NAA, SM and etc…are all fighting for a bill so one or two of them can sit at the IACC. Those who get a seat, unless they already have

ties on the IACC, maybe treated like a parent at an IEP. That organization sitting as a rubber stamp, for whatever sector it is chosen from, with no real voice. Yes, whichever org is there can add to the minutes, but for action to take place it needs consensus of the entire committee. Also, who is going to decide which organization will represent the autism community? How are we going to ensure accountability? I am not attacking; these are merely some of those hard questions I wish to have answered. Also, integrity must be of the highest caliber to be trusted by the masses. I guess that sums up the concerns I have read by the many who are

questioning it, whether warranted or not, it is in question. Thus it must be addressed. Would many here question if CAN was the rep for community on the IACC, yes; because, it is matter of integrity. I am not saying that compromising shows a lack of integrity, I am saying a lack of transparency and accusations do. Maybe that is why so many have a visceral reaction to studies that still question parenting as the cause of autism, such as the TV study, the old fathers study, the mom’s bad habit studies. One, the lack of transparency in funding and intent, and the indirect accusation that parents cause autism. Please know, I just wish for all members of the autism

community to have an opportunity to understand the issues and make an informed choice based on personal research regarding the requests for our support for the Combating Autism Act. Lastly, I have stated before, my greatest problem with the bill is how little is being funded for services through existing federal agencies, the Dept of ED, Medicaid, Early Intervention, etc…The research, although well intentioned, will not show results for another 3 to 5 years, so, for me is not nearly as imperative as services and supports to families now. Thank you for letting me speak my mind…

[Guest guest]

> Many parents here have experienced this; we know what it is like to face a

room filled

with professionals who look on you as only a parent. Your voice does not

matter in the

discussions, until you can prove to them it does. However if what you are

saying costs

them something, or flies in the face of accepted practice, you will be ignored

until you

bring in bigger guns or a higher authority who can revoke their funding.

>

> This is one of my fears of how the CAA is being handled. It appears (I may

be wrong)

these organizations, AS, CAN. ASA, NAA, SM and etc…are all fighting for a bill

so one or

two of them can sit at the IACC. Those who get a seat, unless they already

have ties on

the IACC, maybe treated like a parent at an IEP. That organization sitting as

a rubber

stamp, for whatever sector it is chosen from, with no real voice. Yes,

whichever org is

there can add to the minutes, but for action to take place it needs consensus

of the entire

committee. Also, who is going to decide which organization will represent the

autism

community? How are we going to ensure accountability? I am not attacking;

these are

merely some of those hard questions I wish to have answered.

>

> Also, integrity must be of the highest caliber to be trusted by the masses.

I guess that

sums up the concerns I have read by the many who are questioning it, whether

warranted

or not, it is in question. Thus it must be addressed. Would many here

question if CAN

was the rep for community on the IACC, yes; because, it is matter of integrity.

I am not

saying that compromising shows a lack of integrity, I am saying a lack of

transparency

and accusations do. Maybe that is why so many have a visceral reaction to

studies that

still question parenting as the cause of autism, such as the TV study, the old

fathers

study, the mom's bad habit studies. One, the lack of transparency in funding

and intent,

and the indirect accusation that parents cause autism.

>

Yes, but even the most agreeable parent, when crossed, can be a force to be

reckoned

with! Especially when it is the past damage, and future life of their child(ren)

that is driving

them. As the old, tired, and true saying goes, " The squeeky wheel gets the

grease " .

Never give in!

[Guest guest]

That's why you need a tax credit- so you can do what you think is correct.

A Seat at the table...

My first IEP for Kolin, I read the rules, the law and the regulations. I had already consulted with doctors, read the books and had advocates with me to support me. I knew his rights, I knew what he needed. But there I was, just a parent, sitting at table with professionals who had already decided based on the documentation in front of them what was right for Kolin. They had only spent an hour with him. But they had their ideas based on other children what was effective and thus they created a program on what they had to offer, not on what Kolin needed. I spoke till I was blue in the face, I could not change their position, they were professionals, how dare I question them.

Soon, I also became a professional, a professional advocate who attended meetings with parents and helped them successfully. However for Kolin’s IEP’s, I was still just a parent. It took a year and calling the state Dept of Ed to get them to listen to me, I knew my son and how to help him. They could see it in his changes at school and with me. But when it came to the purse strings, I was still the parent. I had no real say in these meetings.

Many parents here have experienced this; we know what it is like to face a room filled with professionals who look on you as only a parent. Your voice does not matter in the discussions, until you can prove to them it does. However if what you are saying costs them something, or flies in the face of accepted practice, you will be ignored until you bring in bigger guns or a higher authority who can revoke their funding.

This is one of my fears of how the CAA is being handled. It appears (I may be wrong) these organizations, AS, CAN. ASA, NAA, SM and etc…are all fighting for a bill so one or two of them can sit at the IACC. Those who get a seat, unless they already have ties on the IACC, maybe treated like a parent at an IEP. That organization sitting as a rubber stamp, for whatever sector it is chosen from, with no real voice. Yes, whichever org is there can add to the minutes, but for action to take place it needs consensus of the entire committee. Also, who is going to decide which organization will represent the autism community? How are we going to ensure accountability? I am not attacking; these are merely some of those hard questions I wish to have answered.

Also, integrity must be of the highest caliber to be trusted by the masses. I guess that sums up the concerns I have read by the many who are questioning it, whether warranted or not, it is in question. Thus it must be addressed. Would many here question if CAN was the rep for community on the IACC, yes; because, it is matter of integrity. I am not saying that compromising shows a lack of integrity, I am saying a lack of transparency and accusations do. Maybe that is why so many have a visceral reaction to studies that still question parenting as the cause of autism, such as the TV study, the old fathers study, the mom’s bad habit studies. One, the lack of transparency in funding and intent, and the indirect accusation that parents cause autism.

Please know, I just wish for all members of the autism community to have an opportunity to understand the issues and make an informed choice based on personal research regarding the requests for our support for the Combating Autism Act. Lastly, I have stated before, my greatest problem with the bill is how little is being funded for services through existing federal agencies, the Dept of ED, Medicaid, Early Intervention, etc…The research, although well intentioned, will not show results for another 3 to 5 years, so, for me is not nearly as imperative as services and supports to families now.

Thank you for letting me speak my mind…

[Guest guest]

A tax credit is useless for parents who aren't wealthy. This CAA

should be addressing treatment first and foremost. I don't see any

money allocated for treatment.

By the time any research is done, it might be too late to help the

children. We already know the answers and agreeing to this sham of a

bill just hurts children who are not already being helped with

biomedical intervention.

I'd like to know who was negotiating and allowed language to be

inserted that could make chelation illegal. Whoever stood by for

this should be removed from the table.

Supporting research does nothing to help kids already affected.

Isn't there anyone negotiating this bill who has the guts to fight

for treatment first and combat the autism for the kids who are

suffering now?

>

> That's why you need a tax credit- so you can do what you think is

correct.

>

>

>

>

> A Seat at the table...

>

>

>

> My first IEP for Kolin, I read the rules, the law and the

regulations. I had already consulted with doctors, read the books

and had advocates with me to support me. I knew his rights, I knew

what he needed. But there I was, just a parent, sitting at table

with professionals who had already decided based on the documentation

in front of them what was right for Kolin. They had only spent an

hour with him. But they had their ideas based on other children what

was effective and thus they created a program on what they had to

offer, not on what Kolin needed. I spoke till I was blue in the

face, I could not change their position, they were professionals, how

dare I question them.

>

> Soon, I also became a professional, a professional advocate who

attended meetings with parents and helped them successfully. However

for Kolin's IEP's, I was still just a parent. It took a year and

calling the state Dept of Ed to get them to listen to me, I knew my

son and how to help him. They could see it in his changes at school

and with me. But when it came to the purse strings, I was still the

parent. I had no real say in these meetings.

>

> Many parents here have experienced this; we know what it is like

to face a room filled with professionals who look on you as only a

parent. Your voice does not matter in the discussions, until you can

prove to them it does. However if what you are saying costs them

something, or flies in the face of accepted practice, you will be

ignored until you bring in bigger guns or a higher authority who can

revoke their funding.

>

> This is one of my fears of how the CAA is being handled. It

appears (I may be wrong) these organizations, AS, CAN. ASA, NAA, SM

and etc.are all fighting for a bill so one or two of them can sit at

the IACC. Those who get a seat, unless they already have ties on the

IACC, maybe treated like a parent at an IEP. That organization

sitting as a rubber stamp, for whatever sector it is chosen from,

with no real voice. Yes, whichever org is there can add to the

minutes, but for action to take place it needs consensus of the

entire committee. Also, who is going to decide which organization

will represent the autism community? How are we going to ensure

accountability? I am not attacking; these are merely some of those

hard questions I wish to have answered.

>

> Also, integrity must be of the highest caliber to be trusted by

the masses. I guess that sums up the concerns I have read by the

many who are questioning it, whether warranted or not, it is in

question. Thus it must be addressed. Would many here question if

CAN was the rep for community on the IACC, yes; because, it is matter

of integrity. I am not saying that compromising shows a lack of

integrity, I am saying a lack of transparency and accusations do.

Maybe that is why so many have a visceral reaction to studies that

still question parenting as the cause of autism, such as the TV

study, the old fathers study, the mom's bad habit studies. One, the

lack of transparency in funding and intent, and the indirect

accusation that parents cause autism.

>

> Please know, I just wish for all members of the autism community

to have an opportunity to understand the issues and make an informed

choice based on personal research regarding the requests for our

support for the Combating Autism Act. Lastly, I have stated before,

my greatest problem with the bill is how little is being funded for

services through existing federal agencies, the Dept of ED, Medicaid,

Early Intervention, etc.The research, although well intentioned, will

not show results for another 3 to 5 years, so, for me is not nearly

as imperative as services and supports to families now.

>

> Thank you for letting me speak my mind.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No.

A tax credit would work similar to the earned income tax credit and something like this.

Say the tax credit is $25,000 per year.

If you don't pay any tax, your refund check will be $25,000.

If you owe $7,000 in taxes at tax time, your refund check will be $18,000.

If you owe $10,000 in taxes at tax time, your refund check will be $15,000.

If you owe $55,000 at tax time, you will pay the government $30,000. That is a tax credit in its simplest form.

It is simple, it is clean and it places the cost and onus on the government because that's who mandated the program and essentially caused the damage. I understand Debi's arguments, but the damage has to be spread over the tax-paying population. If the government/state attorney generals wish to seek restitution based upon some violation of the law from the private sector, then so be it. But give the families their money now, so they can help their kids. You can work in some 9/11 opt-out concepts for those who wish to sue the private entities without tapping into the tax credit.

The families get the money immediately (as soon as they file their taxes and the government sends them their redund/tax credit check) and they can spend the money however they see fit. Without the same group who caused the damage dictating how money will be spent.

A Seat at the table...> > > > My first IEP for Kolin, I read the rules, the law and the regulations. I had already consulted with doctors, read the books and had advocates with me to support me. I knew his rights, I knew what he needed. But there I was, just a parent, sitting at table with professionals who had already decided based on the documentation in front of them what was right for Kolin. They had only spent an hour with him. But they had their ideas based on other children what was effective and thus they created a program on what they had to offer, not on what Kolin needed. I spoke till I was blue in the face, I could not change their position, they were professionals, how dare I question them. > > Soon, I also became a professional, a professional advocate who attended meetings with parents and helped them successfully. However for Kolin's IEP's, I was still just a parent. It took a year and calling the state Dept of Ed to get them to listen to me, I knew my son and how to help him. They could see it in his changes at school and with me. But when it came to the purse strings, I was still the parent. I had no real say in these meetings.> > Many parents here have experienced this; we know what it is like to face a room filled with professionals who look on you as only a parent. Your voice does not matter in the discussions, until you can prove to them it does. However if what you are saying costs them something, or flies in the face of accepted practice, you will be ignored until you bring in bigger guns or a higher authority who can revoke their funding.> > This is one of my fears of how the CAA is being handled. It appears (I may be wrong) these organizations, AS, CAN. ASA, NAA, SM and etc.are all fighting for a bill so one or two of them can sit at the IACC. Those who get a seat, unless they already have ties on the IACC, maybe treated like a parent at an IEP. That organization sitting as a rubber stamp, for whatever sector it is chosen from, with no real voice. Yes, whichever org is there can add to the minutes, but for action to take place it needs consensus of the entire committee. Also, who is going to decide which organization will represent the autism community? How are we going to ensure accountability? I am not attacking; these are merely some of those hard questions I wish to have answered. > > Also, integrity must be of the highest caliber to be trusted by the masses. I guess that sums up the concerns I have read by the many who are questioning it, whether warranted or not, it is in question. Thus it must be addressed. Would many here question if CAN was the rep for community on the IACC, yes; because, it is matter of integrity. I am not saying that compromising shows a lack of integrity, I am saying a lack of transparency and accusations do. Maybe that is why so many have a visceral reaction to studies that still question parenting as the cause of autism, such as the TV study, the old fathers study, the mom's bad habit studies. One, the lack of transparency in funding and intent, and the indirect accusation that parents cause autism. > > Please know, I just wish for all members of the autism community to have an opportunity to understand the issues and make an informed choice based on personal research regarding the requests for our support for the Combating Autism Act. Lastly, I have stated before, my greatest problem with the bill is how little is being funded for services through existing federal agencies, the Dept of ED, Medicaid, Early Intervention, etc.The research, although well intentioned, will not show results for another 3 to 5 years, so, for me is not nearly as imperative as services and supports to families now.> > Thank you for letting me speak my mind.> > >

[Guest guest]

Some people are lucky enough to have health insurance. Some people are even lucky enough to have health insurance which doesn't choose to disallow coverage for the treatment that they or their family members need. I'm wondering what good my health insurance is to me. I thought that the whole point of it was to alleviate the risks. To help the people who were unlucky enough to be sick but conscientious enough to work and pay for health insurance. Now I find out that certain people with certain illnesses can be arbitrarily told, in essence, "fook you". Better read all of the fine print. Best Jr <bettwice33@...> wrote: A tax credit is useless for parents who aren't wealthy. This CAA should be addressing treatment first and foremost. I don't see any money allocated for treatment. By the time any research is done, it might be too late to help the children. We already know the answers and agreeing to this sham of a bill just hurts children who are not already being helped with biomedical intervention. I'd like to know who was negotiating and allowed language to be inserted that could make chelation illegal. Whoever stood by for this should be removed from the table. Supporting research does nothing to help kids already affected. Isn't there anyone negotiating this bill who has the guts to fight for treatment first and combat the autism for the kids who are suffering now? > > That's why you need a tax credit- so you can do what you think is correct. > > > > > A Seat at the table... > > > > My first IEP for Kolin, I read the rules, the law and the regulations. I had already consulted with

doctors, read the books and had advocates with me to support me. I knew his rights, I knew what he needed. But there I was, just a parent, sitting at table with professionals who had already decided based on the documentation in front of them what was right for Kolin. They had only spent an hour with him. But they had their ideas based on other children what was effective and thus they created a program on what they had to offer, not on what Kolin needed. I spoke till I was blue in the face, I could not change their position, they were professionals, how dare I question them. > > Soon, I also became a professional, a professional advocate who attended meetings with parents and helped them successfully. However for Kolin's IEP's, I was still just a parent. It took a year and calling the state Dept of Ed to get them to listen to me, I knew my son and how to help him. They could see it

in his changes at school and with me. But when it came to the purse strings, I was still the parent. I had no real say in these meetings. > > Many parents here have experienced this; we know what it is like to face a room filled with professionals who look on you as only a parent. Your voice does not matter in the discussions, until you can prove to them it does. However if what you are saying costs them something, or flies in the face of accepted practice, you will be ignored until you bring in bigger guns or a higher authority who can revoke their funding. > > This is one of my fears of how the CAA is being handled. It appears (I may be wrong) these organizations, AS, CAN. ASA, NAA, SM and etc.are all fighting for a bill so one or two of them can sit at the IACC. Those who get a seat, unless they already have ties on the IACC, maybe treated like a parent at an IEP. That

organization sitting as a rubber stamp, for whatever sector it is chosen from, with no real voice. Yes, whichever org is there can add to the minutes, but for action to take place it needs consensus of the entire committee. Also, who is going to decide which organization will represent the autism community? How are we going to ensure accountability? I am not attacking; these are merely some of those hard questions I wish to have answered. > > Also, integrity must be of the highest caliber to be trusted by the masses. I guess that sums up the concerns I have read by the many who are questioning it, whether warranted or not, it is in question. Thus it must be addressed. Would many here question if CAN was the rep for community on the IACC, yes; because, it is matter of integrity. I am not saying that compromising shows a lack of integrity, I am saying a lack of transparency and

accusations do. Maybe that is why so many have a visceral reaction to studies that still question parenting as the cause of autism, such as the TV study, the old fathers study, the mom's bad habit studies. One, the lack of transparency in funding and intent, and the indirect accusation that parents cause autism. > > Please know, I just wish for all members of the autism community to have an opportunity to understand the issues and make an informed choice based on personal research regarding the requests for our support for the Combating Autism Act. Lastly, I have stated before, my greatest problem with the bill is how little is being funded for services through existing federal agencies, the Dept of ED, Medicaid, Early Intervention, etc.The research, although well intentioned, will not show results for another 3 to 5 years, so, for me is not nearly as imperative as services and supports

to families now. > > Thank you for letting me speak my mind. > > >

[Guest guest]

,

I share your frustration.

People have said we should find a way to fund our own research.

Research has been privately funded to some degree, and it has been

ignored, criticized as being flawed, or somehow brushed off. We need

government funded/sanctioned research to get insurance coverage, tax

credits, whatever- the assistance we need to treat our ill children.

Here's what scares the heck out of me. My son probably will never be

fully independent. He is on a waiting list for a waiver here in Ohio.

It is estimated there are 16,000 individuals waiting here. Where is

the money going to come from to care for him when he is older? He has

a 12 year old sister who already talks about caring for him when we

are too old or dead. Is social security going to be here? How much

money will he get from that? Will he get medicaid? How will he be

financially supported? God knows we are so far in debt now from 8

plus years of autism treatment. I can't even imagine ever digging out

of it, let alone stashing away funds to care for him. We like most

people with autistic children are not wealthy. If my son was damaged,

then he deserves, his sister deserves restitution, period.

The CAA has nothing in it as far as I know, (I read a quote from ASA

President Lee Grossman in some article) nothing in the CAA addressing

adults with autism, or soon to be adults.

So, if they aren't going to fund the " real " research looking into

vaccines and other environmental toxins, and what is biomedically

going on with our kids. And, they are not planning for the future for

the aging autism population....what good is the CAA for children

alive today with autism?

Of course, most of us are not privy to that inside information.

Everything I have read about the CAA on this list from one person who

claims to know what is going on, has virtually told us nothing. I get

the feeling we should just sit back, shut up and be grateful for

whatever sham of a bill the CAA turns out to be. We also should be

thankful that someone with such polital finesse is supposedly working

on this in our kids' best interest.

Well, we all know that the Autism Society of America is still gung ho

to get this mysterious CAA (ASA home of the " something is better than

nothing " mentality). I've never found the ASA (at the national level)

to be all that helpful, but I never imagined that they would actually

be a detriment to us. In my opinion, they are more of a liabilty than

an asset. I guess when you are an organization with " America " in your

name, it's hard for other organizations to compete in the clout arena.

I sent an e-mail to Mr. Grossman, asking him to contact me

specifically outling, how the CAA they are negotiating with Mr.

Barton will help my ten-year-old nonverbal, seriously ill son. That

was last week, I suprisingly have yet to hear back from him and don't

plan on hearing from him in the future.

I don't care about how infighting might look to moles on this list, I

seriously want to know what we can expect from this bill.

I can't believe how disconnected some of these organizations appear

to be from the reality of what it is like to " combat autism " on a day

to day basis.

I pray our kids don't get screwed over.

Keller

> >

> > That's why you need a tax credit- so you can do what you think is

> correct.

[Guest guest]

They may not actually fund anything useful.

But at least they'll have a litany of papers showing that they had nothing to do with the autism epidemic and it was all a problem with your child's defective genes.

But tell that to the dinosaurs who died after the asteroid hit the Yucatan some 55-60 million years ago. They probably wouldn't think their extinction was "genetic" either.

Re: A Seat at the table...

,I share your frustration. People have said we should find a way to fund our own research. Research has been privately funded to some degree, and it has been ignored, criticized as being flawed, or somehow brushed off. We need government funded/sanctioned research to get insurance coverage, tax credits, whatever- the assistance we need to treat our ill children.Here's what scares the heck out of me. My son probably will never be fully independent. He is on a waiting list for a waiver here in Ohio. It is estimated there are 16,000 individuals waiting here. Where is the money going to come from to care for him when he is older? He has a 12 year old sister who already talks about caring for him when we are too old or dead. Is social security going to be here? How much money will he get from that? Will he get medicaid? How will he be financially supported? God knows we are so far in debt now from 8 plus years of autism treatment. I can't even imagine ever digging out of it, let alone stashing away funds to care for him. We like most people with autistic children are not wealthy. If my son was damaged, then he deserves, his sister deserves restitution, period.The CAA has nothing in it as far as I know, (I read a quote from ASA President Lee Grossman in some article) nothing in the CAA addressing adults with autism, or soon to be adults.So, if they aren't going to fund the "real" research looking into vaccines and other environmental toxins, and what is biomedically going on with our kids. And, they are not planning for the future for the aging autism population....what good is the CAA for children alive today with autism?Of course, most of us are not privy to that inside information. Everything I have read about the CAA on this list from one person who claims to know what is going on, has virtually told us nothing. I get the feeling we should just sit back, shut up and be grateful for whatever sham of a bill the CAA turns out to be. We also should be thankful that someone with such polital finesse is supposedly working on this in our kids' best interest.Well, we all know that the Autism Society of America is still gung ho to get this mysterious CAA (ASA home of the "something is better than nothing" mentality). I've never found the ASA (at the national level) to be all that helpful, but I never imagined that they would actually be a detriment to us. In my opinion, they are more of a liabilty than an asset. I guess when you are an organization with "America" in your name, it's hard for other organizations to compete in the clout arena.I sent an e-mail to Mr. Grossman, asking him to contact me specifically outling, how the CAA they are negotiating with Mr. Barton will help my ten-year-old nonverbal, seriously ill son. That was last week, I suprisingly have yet to hear back from him and don't plan on hearing from him in the future.I don't care about how infighting might look to moles on this list, I seriously want to know what we can expect from this bill. I can't believe how disconnected some of these organizations appear to be from the reality of what it is like to "combat autism" on a day to day basis.I pray our kids don't get screwed over. Keller> >> > That's why you need a tax credit- so you can do what you think is > correct.

[Guest guest]

; Agreed. We have no reason to keep any of the negotiations

quiet. We have nothing to lose since the CAA gives us nothing.

Negotiators should be shoving treatment down their throats and making

this as public as possible. I'd tell them to shove the whole bill if

they are not going to address the needs of afflicted children

immediately. Who cares if the negotiations are made public? It

doesn't matter if the bill is killed when it doesn't do anything to

help our kids. Negotiators should be adopting a take no prisoners

attitude and not back off one iota.

> > >

> > > That's why you need a tax credit- so you can do what you think

is

> > correct.

>

[Guest guest]

:

I believe we CAN fund our own research. I have discussed this with

executive level big Pharma personnel. We can do a vaccinated vs

nonvaccinated epidemiological study, which is both simple and

inexpensive. Get a big name epidemiologist to author it (they can be

bought)and/or get a prestigious institution involved (Harvard

perhaps). Stay away from naturopathic institutional support and

anyone remotely controversial. Use a big sample and make sure the

methodology is flawless. Go straight to the public with the

information--our friends in the media should be able to insure

national dissemination of the results.

I think our community is incredibly naive to think we'll get an

honest study from the govt anytime soon, or perhaps ever.

> > >

> > > That's why you need a tax credit- so you can do what you think

is

> > correct.

>