Re: The Age of Autism: A new environment

January 9, 2007

>This is the most encouraging thing that I have seen on this site.

(really)

> The Age of Autism: A new environment

> By DAN OLMSTED

> UPI Senior Editor

>

> WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- We are all environmentalists now.

>

> At least that's the impression you get from reading the discussion

> surrounding the Combating Autism Act that President Bush recently

> signed into law.

>

> http://tinyurl.com/yhooqo

>

January 10, 2007

From the article:

" 'However, I recognize that there is much that we do not know about

the biological pathways and origins of this disorder, and that further

investigation into all possible causes of autism is needed.'

That means, Do it.

In the Senate, several members went on record to make the same point. "

Olmstead is wrong here, like some of our naieve and wishful-thinking

friends. There is nothing in the Combating Autism Act that says " do

it " -- make the NIH look into the vaccine-autism connection. The

floor language he quotes is non-binding political posturing, window

dressing, that is suppose to assuage parents who insist the govenment

is covering-up -- and not looking into the causes of the " autism "

epidemic. We are now supposed to believe that the NIH, because of

some cheap political talk from pharma fattened politicians, will now

be willing to fund research to put their bretheren public health

agencies out of business?

That Olmstead and others are so willing to short our children on such

thin promises is mind-boggling.

Olmstead calls the CAA revolutionary. What a disappointing insult to

our intelligence.

Lenny Schafer

> >This is the most encouraging thing that I have seen on this site.

> (really)

> > The Age of Autism: A new environment

> > By DAN OLMSTED

> > UPI Senior Editor

> >

> > WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- We are all environmentalists now.

> >

> > At least that's the impression you get from reading the discussion

> > surrounding the Combating Autism Act that President Bush recently

> > signed into law.

> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/yhooqo

> >

>

January 10, 2007

I agree with Lenny Schafer on this point.

In my opinion, Dan Olmsted's interpretation of the Combating Autism Act

( " CAA " ) is truly spin and revisionist history. The Act provides little

on which to build a foundation for vaccine research. Yes, a case can be

made that the bill promotes vaccine research - using the text and

legislative history of the CAA. But the argument is thin - a stronger

counter-argument can be made by foes of the vaccine hypothesis, using

the legislative history and the CAA's text, to claim that it is a

mandate for any and every type of autism research other than vaccine

research.

What will promote the cause of vaccine research is concerted advocacy

and pressure by parents who know what happened to their kids. It is

not the CAA that does this or will make history - it is the parents who

want the truth told about what happened to their kids.

Dan Olmsted says about the parenthetical weak nod to " environmental "

research in the CAA:

" Those might be the most important parentheses in recent American

history. What's afoot is nothing short of revolutionary -- a fresh

attempt to find what's causing autism without taking anything off the

table. "

But the same Senator Enzi quoted by Dan Olmsted specifically validated

the IOM finding that vaccine research should not be pursued. The same

Rep. Barton quoted by Olmsted removed specific funding for

environmental research from the bill. What can be revolutionary is the

actions of parents who keep the pressure on Congress and others to do

something about the vaccine link to autism or other neurodevelopmental

disorders. Diluting the vaccine issue into a generalized environmental

issue does not do much to accomplish this.

Let's move on to focus on the issues rather than focus the entire

debate on what the Combating Autism Act does or does not do.

I think continued reliance on the CAA as the fulcrum of our efforts and

our discussion is a mistake and can work against those who want honest

research on vaccines. Sure, use whatever the CAA does provide as

support for an honest look at vaccines, but we need more than that to

get where we want. When it comes to vaccine research to say the CAA was

" revolutionary " is hyperbole in the extreme. We need more than

hyperbole or spin to get the job done.

Bob Krakow

On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:14 PM, schaferatsprynet wrote: