Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street Journal

Rate this topic

Guest guest

By Guest guest
in Health, Medicine and Natural Healing 07

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

websites where only those of us driven by the charade

would bother to see it?

Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

Journal

Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

schaferatsprynet

Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

Journal

http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

TV dinner still cooling?

Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

http://tv./

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ -

don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed out

it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on genetics, and

for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much more

effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of

genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are wrong

and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why they

continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the interests

of our children?

RJK

On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

websites where only those of us driven by the charade

would bother to see it?

Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

Journal

Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

schaferatsprynet

Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

Journal

http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

__________________________________________________________

TV dinner still cooling?

Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

http://tv./

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I get it. You guys don't like Autism Speaks. I am sure they are well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support them are on this list. No matter what you think of AS, they are a force to be reckoned with. I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks. I respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting off track here. A more productive use of time would be to analytically figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals in their research radar screen. Just telling them isn't enough. We need to get more creative here.

If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in speculation in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might never do.

And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the "autism is mercury poisoning" cause. And in case I'm next, just a reminder that my last name is , not , so please spell it right when you question my integrity as well.

Heidi

From: Krakow <rkrakow@...>Reply- EOHarm EOHarm Subject: Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street JournalDate: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500>As far as I know the "clarification" is not yet published in WSJ - >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the >interests of our children?>>RJK>On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:>>So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?> Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the> misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by> nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)> and publish their clarification only on a few obscure> websites where only those of us driven by the charade> would bother to see it?>> Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street> Journal> Posted by: "schaferatsprynet" schafer@...> schaferatsprynet> Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)> Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street> Journal>>http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php>> __________________________________________________________> TV dinner still cooling?> Check out "Tonight's Picks" on TV.>http://tv./>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I agree Heidi.

The whole “guessing what people think” is tiring and not very productive.

I asked a few days ago who was going to Autism One and no one responded.

We all need to vent from time to time. We all need to question authority.

But, all the AS bashing just cannot result in anything good.

On 3/4/07 7:51 PM, " elevatordance " <elevatordance@...> wrote:

I get it. You guys don't like Autism Speaks. I am sure they are well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support them are on this list. No matter what you think of AS, they are a force to be reckoned with. I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks. I respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting off track here. A more productive use of time would be to analytically figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals in their research radar screen. Just telling them isn't enough. We need to get more creative here.

If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in speculation in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might never do.

And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the " autism is mercury poisoning " cause. And in case I'm next, just a reminder that my last name is , not , so please spell it right when you question my integrity as well.

Heidi

From: Krakow <rkrakow@...>

Reply- EOHarm

EOHarm

Subject: Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street Journal

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500

>As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ -

>don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed

>out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on

>genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much

>more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of

>genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are

>wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why

>they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the

>interests of our children?

>

>RJK

>On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

>

>So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

> Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

> misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

> nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

> and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

> websites where only those of us driven by the charade

> would bother to see it?

>

> Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> Journal

> Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

> schaferatsprynet

> Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

> Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> Journal

>

>http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

>

> __________________________________________________________

> TV dinner still cooling?

> Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

>http://tv./

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Heidi says:

>. . . I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of

Barry.

I love and sure hope he succeeds turning AS from their

genetics/Pharma interests. Am I being too harsh on AS? Perhaps, but

the emporer has no clothes, as I see it.

Lenny

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

" The focus is on the good guys, the bad guys, what they're up to,

who've they hurt, who they saved and what they might do next " .

I believe the current discussion of Alison Singer has been very

relevant to the purpose of this group and in the interest of our kids.

It personally motivated me to send an email directly to AS stating my

dissatisfaction with Alison's comments.

If Alison hadn't been confronted, do you think she would have retracted

her statement?

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

>

> But, all the AS bashing just cannot result in anything good.

Hi ,

I agree that sometimes politics gets ugly. Someone has to point out

the elephant in the living room -- the harm of their genetics agenda.

Sometimes it gets tough to keep a smiley face about it when you see

how much harm has come to our kids. Who is " bashing " our kids when

millions are wasted genetic alibi research? Me?

Lenny

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hello ,

First, let me say that I always appreciate your efforts and we have

worked very productively together in NY to help our children. Next

week, we again will be working together to push the NY legislature to

help our children. (I won't be there in person but I have been working

on testimony with various persons who are attending, all weekend. We

have some very important and creative proposals to make to the

legislature, at this hearing and later, as well.)

I would ask you, who is " guessing what people think. " My view is you

should take public statements at face value. That is what I have done

with Autism Speaks and their 'clarification. " I have not vented – but

I have analyzed, exercised critical thinking and challenged public

statements. To the best of my recollection most other messages on this

list have done the same. What is wrong with that?

I have not seen AS " bashing " but I have engaged in reasoned criticism

of public statements and the promotion of a genetic research and autism

etiology agenda. If that should not be discussed on this list, then

where should it be discussed? How is that venting? That is public

debate in this, the virtual public square. Almost all the messages

related to this issue have been non-venting, non-bashing questions and

criticism. The questions may be challenging and, to some, that may seem

unpleasant or impolite. But challenging questions and debate rarely

leans toward politeness and always invites confrontation. But that is

the nature of controversy, and I suggest that anyone who has subscribed

to this list has entered into a world of controversy. That is one

reason why the list exists – as a forum for the " does mercury cause

autism " and related controversies.

Seems that such a thing is constructive, even if statements made by

particular organizations are challenged. No? The good that can result

is clarification of positions and raising awareness of what certain

organizations, like Autism Speaks that claims to speak for our children

with autism, stand for. That can only result is greater understanding

and awareness and that can only be good.

By the way, in answer to your question, I am attending Autism One. In

my presentation I will initiate a campaign by A-CHAMP, in conjunction

with many organizations both in and out of the autism world, to reform

the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act so that children and adults with

vaccine-injury have real access to justice, rather than what exists

now, which is an exercise in frustrating our children's civil rights.

Part of the discussion will be legislative initiatives to reform and

extend the statute of limitation, provide a vehicle for better

discover, better compensation for experts to even the playing field,

and more balanced decision-making, among other issues.

For Heidi : I hope that is creative enough an endeavor (if your

comments were directed at me. If they were not, then never mind.)

Bob

On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:12 PM, christine wrote:

I agree Heidi.  

The whole “guessing what people think” is tiring and not very

productive.  

I asked a few days ago who was going to Autism One and no one

responded.

We all need to vent from time to time.  We all need to question

authority.

But, all the AS bashing just cannot result in anything good.  

On 3/4/07 7:51 PM, " elevatordance " <elevatordance@...> wrote:

>

>  

>  

>

> I get it.  You guys don't like Autism Speaks.  I am sure they are

> well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support them

> are on this list.  No matter what you think of AS, they are a force to

> be reckoned with.  I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send unemotional

> fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks.  I respect

> everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting off track

> here.  A more productive use of time would be to analytically figure

> out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals

> in their research radar screen.  Just telling them isn't enough.  We

> need to get more creative here.  

>

> If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the

> purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in speculation

> in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have meant or what

> Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might  never do.  

>

> And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of

> Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and will

> no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the " autism is

> mercury poisoning " cause.  And in case I'm next, just a reminder that

> my last name is , not , so please spell it right when you

> question my integrity as well.  

>

> Heidi

>

>  

>

>

>

>  

>

>> From:   Krakow <rkrakow@...>

>> Reply- EOHarm

>>  EOHarm

>> Subject:  Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re:

>> Wall Street Journal

>> Date:  Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500

>> >As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ -

>> >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed

>> >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on

>> >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much

>> >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of

>> >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are

>> >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why

>> >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the

>> >interests of our children?

>> >

>> >RJK

>> >On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

>> >

>> >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

>> >  Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

>> >  misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

>> >  nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

>> >  and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

>> >  websites where only those of us driven by the charade

>> >  would bother to see it?

>> >

>> >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

>> >  Journal

>> >  Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

>> >  schaferatsprynet

>> >  Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

>> >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

>> >  Journal

>> >

>> >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

>> >

>> >  __________________________________________________________

>> >  TV dinner still cooling?

>> >  Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

>> >http://tv./

>> >

>> >

>

>     

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Heidi (I have never called you " " , are you referring to

me???),

Since your message was posted in response to my message, I would point

out that it does not appear responsive to the points I have made in my

message, or others I have made in this thread. I am, therefore, puzzled

by your message. Are you directing your comments to me or my messages?

If so, I suggest your comments are misplaced. If directed to others, I

cannot comment, but I sure would appreciate a clarification as to

whether your message is responsive to mine.

My comments have nothing to do with " liking " Autism Speaks or a

particular person associated with Autism Speaks. In fact, I don't think

my messages have ever discussed a particular person, at least not by

name. My points focus not on " like " or " dislike " but articulate

disagreement with the organization's publicly stated positions. I

believe the best way to " analytically figure out how to motivate AS to

be more receptive to including heavy metals on their research radar

screen " and to support positions that reflect our children's

interests, is to make clear what the AS positions are and to criticize

them where appropriate. If they are a " force to reckon with " would you

then suggest we should muzzle criticism? How is that reckoning with

their positions?

I also have no idea what you mean about " unemotional fact-based

communication, " at least insofar as my messages are concerned. I don't

see much " emotionalism " in my posts - just attempts at reasoned

statement of position and sound argument. If you take my statements as

emotional rants, perhaps I have failed in communicating to you my

views. I am not speculating as to what Autism Speaks meant or might

have meant. I take their statements on face value, and with respect to

the recent discussion of genetics, have tried to explain a counter-view

of genetics. I fully agree that Ed Yazbak stated it better! which is

why I was happy to post his message about genetics.

The purpose of this list, as I see it, is to discuss public positions

that affect our kids. I would say that challenge of statements on

genetics, and raising questions about misleading promotion of

scientific studies claiming autism has a genetic etiology, are

appropriate issues to raise on this list. I am not worried about

" lurkers " reading these messages. This is an open discussion and here,

at least, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution flourishes.

What do you mean about " being creative. " It may be presumptuous of you

to suggest that if someone initiates a discussion criticizing an

organization's position on genetics that somehow this means that this

statement is the only thing being done by that individual to advance a

counter-view. Is that what you are suggesting? I shall assume your

comment on this and the others were not directed to me. Perhaps you can

clarify that. This is a list for expression of views. What would you

have discussed here?

By the way, since you posted your comments in response to mine, I would

like to make as clear as possible that I have never questioned the

integrity of Barry, publicly or privately. If you read my posts I

have stated nothing but praise for Barry and his efforts,and have

said so in response to questions by others.

If your message is directed to someone else please so indicate because

I am, indeed, puzzled that you submitted your message in response to

mine.

Bob Krakow

On Mar 4, 2007, at 7:51 PM, elevatordance wrote:

I get it.  You guys don't like Autism Speaks.  I am sure they are well

aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support them are

on this list.  No matter what you think of AS, they are a force to be

reckoned with.  I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send unemotional fact

based communication directly to Autism Speaks.  I respect everyone's

right to post their opinion but we are getting off track here.  A more

productive use of time would be to analytically figure out how to

motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals in their

research radar screen.  Just telling them isn't enough.  We need to get

more creative here. 

If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the

purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in speculation

in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have meant or what

Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might  never do. 

And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of

Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and will

no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the " autism is

mercury poisoning " cause.  And in case I'm next, just a reminder that

my last name is , not , so please spell it right when you

question my integrity as well. 

Heidi

 

 

> From:   Krakow <rkrakow@...>

> Reply-To:  EOHarm

> To:  EOHarm

> Subject:  Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re:

> Wall Street Journal

> Date:  Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500

> >As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ -

> >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed

> >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on

> >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much

> >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of

> >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are

> >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why

> >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the

> >interests of our children?

> >

> >RJK

> >On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

> >

> >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

> >  Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

> >  misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

> >  nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

> >  and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

> >  websites where only those of us driven by the charade

> >  would bother to see it?

> >

> >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> >  Journal

> >  Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

> >  schaferatsprynet

> >  Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

> >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> >  Journal

> >

> >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

> >

> >  __________________________________________________________

> >  TV dinner still cooling?

> >  Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

> >http://tv./

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Bob,

I’m saying in general- I see a lot of negative posts that sometimes go too far. You were calling on her statements in a newspaper. Which is great. But, then others are guessing her motivations. No one said- “hey, does anyone have ’s email address- let’s act her directly”. Right? I would search all the archives and cut and paste the lines from each emails- but honestly I would rather spend my time finishing up the cover letter I’m working on for the Conference packets that are overdue.

I don’t know and probably disagree with everything she says. When she is making statements in the press, she needs to be held accountable. Like anyone does. I’m always in awe of your responses and letters to the editor. What a have a problem with is the discussion afterwards with some posters putting her down and other posters defending her- not talking about facts- but guessing and making excuses. And then something similar with - and he used to be on this list (or maybe he still is- don’t know).

Then when questions are asked about things that are positive and constructive- they are ignored. How much talk is there right now about the upcoming hearing in NY? NONE- except for the A-Champ alert you posted. I just think we need to move on and do our own thing and build ourselves up- instead of trying to tear others down. No- we shouldn’t let them get away with murder. But, we still need to work together and do our thing. Be it the CDC, ND, AS, NAAR, Hillary or whomever— we still have a job to do. I just wish we could spend as much time on something productive. And when I say “we” I don’t mean you Bob. I mean “we” as in the whole group in general. Remember the old days of watching EOH move up the list on Amazon?

On 3/4/07 10:19 PM, " Krakow " <rkrakow@...> wrote:

Hello ,

First, let me say that I always appreciate your efforts and we have worked very productively together in NY to help our children. Next week, we again will be working together to push the NY legislature to help our children. (I won't be there in person but I have been working on testimony with various persons who are attending, all weekend. We have some very important and creative proposals to make to the legislature, at this hearing and later, as well.)

I would ask you, who is " guessing what people think. " My view is you should take public statements at face value. That is what I have done with Autism Speaks and their 'clarification. " I have not vented – but I have analyzed, exercised critical thinking and challenged public statements. To the best of my recollection most other messages on this list have done the same. What is wrong with that?

I have not seen AS " bashing " but I have engaged in reasoned criticism of public statements and the promotion of a genetic research and autism etiology agenda. If that should not be discussed on this list, then where should it be discussed? How is that venting? That is public debate in this, the virtual public square. Almost all the messages related to this issue have been non-venting, non-bashing questions and criticism. The questions may be challenging and, to some, that may seem unpleasant or impolite. But challenging questions and debate rarely leans toward politeness and always invites confrontation. But that is the nature of controversy, and I suggest that anyone who has subscribed to this list has entered into a world of controversy. That is one reason why the list exists – as a forum for the " does mercury cause autism " and related controversies.

Seems that such a thing is constructive, even if statements made by particular organizations are challenged. No? The good that can result is clarification of positions and raising awareness of what certain organizations, like Autism Speaks that claims to speak for our children with autism, stand for. That can only result is greater understanding and awareness and that can only be good.

By the way, in answer to your question, I am attending Autism One. In my presentation I will initiate a campaign by A-CHAMP, in conjunction with many organizations both in and out of the autism world, to reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act so that children and adults with vaccine-injury have real access to justice, rather than what exists now, which is an exercise in frustrating our children's civil rights. Part of the discussion will be legislative initiatives to reform and extend the statute of limitation, provide a vehicle for better discover, better compensation for experts to even the playing field, and more balanced decision-making, among other issues.

For Heidi : I hope that is creative enough an endeavor (if your comments were directed at me. If they were not, then never mind.)

Bob

On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:12 PM, christine wrote:

I agree Heidi.  

The whole “guessing what people think” is tiring and not very productive.  

I asked a few days ago who was going to Autism One and no one responded.

We all need to vent from time to time.  We all need to question authority.

But, all the AS bashing just cannot result in anything good.  

On 3/4/07 7:51 PM, " elevatordance " <elevatordance@...> wrote:

 

 

I get it.  You guys don't like Autism Speaks.  I am sure they are well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support them are on this list.  No matter what you think of AS, they are a force to be reckoned with.  I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks.  I respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting off track here.  A more productive use of time would be to analytically figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals in their research radar screen.  Just telling them isn't enough.  We need to get more creative here.  

If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in speculation in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might  never do.  

And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the " autism is mercury poisoning " cause.  And in case I'm next, just a reminder that my last name is , not , so please spell it right when you question my integrity as well.  

Heidi

 

 

From:   Krakow <rkrakow@...>

Reply- EOHarm

 EOHarm

Subject:  Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street Journal

Date:  Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500

>As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ -

>don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed

>out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on

>genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much

>more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of

>genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are

>wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why

>they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the

>interests of our children?

>

>RJK

>On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

>

>So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

>  Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

>  misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

>  nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

>  and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

>  websites where only those of us driven by the charade

>  would bother to see it?

>

>  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

>  Journal

>  Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

>  schaferatsprynet

>  Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

>  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

>  Journal

>

>http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

>

>  __________________________________________________________

>  TV dinner still cooling?

>  Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

>http://tv./

>

>

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

> If Alison hadn't been confronted, do you think she would have retracted

> her statement?

I think that maybe my comments are being seen as being a personal,

mean attack on Alison Singer. If that's the case, that's unfortunate

because I do know she has confessed her intense stress over her

child's autism and it making her want to drive off a bridge. I know

this stress, too and have sympathy for her and her family as a fellow

parent.

Autism Speaks' genetic agenda is the focus of my comments, however,

and that is most bash-worthy, IMO. Ms. Singer happens to be their

senior vice-president.

Lenny

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

,

I agree with you that the negative posts that attack individuals are

not helpful. But I try to ignore those types of messages, even when

they detract from my message. Flaming is never useful. Reasoned

challenge to the positions taken by organizations is always

appropriate. Thanks for the clarification - I understand better now

what you were reacting to.

Thursday is an important day in New York for our kids! We need better

and more services, better insurance laws, better residential services,

better medical care, better independent research and, most of all, we

need the authorities to treat this like the epidemic that it is, and

respond accordingly.

Bob

On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:42 PM, christine wrote:

Bob,

I’m saying in general- I see a lot of negative posts that sometimes go

too far.   You were calling on her statements in a newspaper.

 Which is great.  But, then others are guessing her motivations.  No

one said- “hey, does anyone have ’s email address- let’s act her

directlyâ€.  Right?  I would search all the archives and cut and paste

the lines from each emails- but honestly I would rather spend my time

finishing up the cover letter I’m working on for the Conference packets

that are overdue.   

I don’t know and probably disagree with everything she says.

 When she is making statements in the press, she needs to be held

accountable.  Like anyone does.  I’m always in awe of your responses

and letters to the editor.  What a have a problem with is the

discussion afterwards with some posters putting her down and other

posters defending her- not talking about facts- but guessing and making

excuses.  And then something similar with - and he used to be on

this list (or maybe he still is- don’t know).

Then when questions are asked about things that are positive and

constructive- they are ignored.  How much talk is there right now about

the upcoming hearing in NY?  NONE- except for the A-Champ alert you

posted.  I just think we need to move on and do our own thing and build

ourselves up- instead of trying to tear others down.  No- we shouldn’t

let them get away with murder.  But, we still need to work together and

do our thing.  Be it the CDC, ND, AS, NAAR, Hillary or whomever— we

still have a job to do.  I just wish we could spend as much time on

something productive.  And when I say “we†I don’t mean you Bob.  I

mean “we†as in the whole group in general.  Remember the old

days of watching EOH move up the list on Amazon?

  

On 3/4/07 10:19 PM, " Krakow " <rkrakow@...> wrote:

> Hello ,

>

> First, let me say that I always appreciate your efforts and we have

> worked very productively together in NY to help our children. Next

> week, we again will be working together to push the NY legislature to

> help our children. (I won't be there in person but I have been working

> on testimony with various persons who are attending, all weekend. We

> have some very important and creative proposals to make to the

> legislature, at this hearing and later, as well.)   

>

> I would ask you, who is " guessing what people think. "  My view is you

> should take public statements at face value. That is what I have done

> with Autism Speaks and their 'clarification. "  I have not vented – but

> I have analyzed, exercised critical thinking and challenged public

> statements. To the best of my recollection most other messages on this

> list have done the same.  What is wrong with that?

>

> I have not seen AS " bashing " but I have engaged in reasoned criticism

> of public statements and the promotion of a genetic research and

> autism etiology agenda. If that should not be discussed on this list,

> then where should it be discussed? How is that venting? That is public

> debate in this, the virtual public square. Almost all the messages

> related to this issue have been non-venting, non-bashing questions and

> criticism. The questions may be challenging and, to some, that may

> seem unpleasant or impolite. But challenging questions and debate

> rarely leans toward politeness and always invites confrontation. But

> that is the nature of controversy, and I suggest that anyone who has

> subscribed to this list has entered into a world of controversy. That

> is one reason why the list exists – as a forum for the " does mercury

> cause autism " and related controversies.

>

> Seems that such a thing is constructive, even if statements made by

> particular organizations are challenged. No? The good that can result

> is clarification of positions and raising awareness of what certain

> organizations, like Autism Speaks that claims to speak for our

> children with autism, stand for. That can only result is greater

> understanding and awareness and that can only be good.

>

> By the way, in answer to your question, I am attending Autism One. In

> my presentation I will initiate a campaign by A-CHAMP, in conjunction

> with many organizations both in and out of the autism world, to reform

> the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act so that children and adults with

> vaccine-injury have real access to justice, rather than what exists

> now, which is an exercise in frustrating our children's civil rights.

>  Part of the discussion will be legislative initiatives to reform and

> extend the statute of limitation, provide a vehicle for better

> discover, better compensation for experts to even the playing field,

> and more balanced decision-making, among other issues.

>

> For Heidi : I hope that is creative enough an endeavor (if your

> comments were directed at me. If they were not, then never mind.)

>

> Bob

> On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:12 PM, christine wrote:

>

> I agree Heidi.  

>

>  The whole “guessing what people think†is tiring and not very

> productive.  

>

>  I asked a few days ago who was going to Autism One and no one

> responded.

>

>  We all need to vent from time to time.  We all need to question

> authority.

>

>  But, all the AS bashing just cannot result in anything good.  

>

>  

>

>

>  On 3/4/07 7:51 PM, " elevatordance " <elevatordance@...>

> wrote:

>

>>

>>   

>>   

>>

>>  I get it.  You guys don't like Autism Speaks.  I am sure they are

>> well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support

>> them are on this list.  No matter what you think of AS, they are a

>> force to be reckoned with.  I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send

>> unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks.  I

>> respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting off

>> track here.  A more productive use of time would be to analytically

>> figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy

>> metals in their research radar screen.  Just telling them isn't

>> enough.  We need to get more creative here.  

>>

>>  If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of

>> the purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in

>> speculation in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have

>> meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might  never

>> do.  

>>

>>  And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of

>> Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and

>> will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the " autism

>> is mercury poisoning " cause.  And in case I'm next, just a reminder

>> that my last name is , not , so please spell it right when

>> you question my integrity as well.  

>>

>>  Heidi

>>

>>   

>>

>>

>>

>>   

>>

>>> From:   Krakow <rkrakow@...>

>>> Reply- EOHarm

>>>  EOHarm

>>> Subject:  Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement

>>> re: Wall Street Journal

>>> Date:  Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500

>>> >As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ -

>>>  

>>>  >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed

>>>  

>>>  >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on  

>>>  >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated

>>> much  

>>>  >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue

>>> of  

>>>  >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are  

>>>  >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders

>>> why  

>>>  >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the  

>>>  >interests of our children?

>>>  >

>>>  >RJK

>>>  >On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

>>>  >

>>>  >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

>>>  >  Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

>>>  >  misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

>>>  >  nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

>>>  >  and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

>>>  >  websites where only those of us driven by the charade

>>>  >  would bother to see it?

>>>  >

>>>  >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

>>>  >  Journal

>>>  >  Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

>>>  >  schaferatsprynet

>>>  >  Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

>>>  >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

>>>  >  Journal

>>>  >

>>>  >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

>>>  >

>>>  >  __________________________________________________________

>>>  >  TV dinner still cooling?

>>>  >  Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

>>>  >http://tv./

>>>  >

>>>  >

>>

>>      

>

>

>   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I agree. Thanks for understanding.

On 3/4/07 10:54 PM, " Krakow " <rkrakow@...> wrote:

,

I agree with you that the negative posts that attack individuals are not helpful. But I try to ignore those types of messages, even when they detract from my message. Flaming is never useful. Reasoned challenge to the positions taken by organizations is always appropriate. Thanks for the clarification - I understand better now what you were reacting to.

Thursday is an important day in New York for our kids! We need better and more services, better insurance laws, better residential services, better medical care, better independent research and, most of all, we need the authorities to treat this like the epidemic that it is, and respond accordingly.

Bob

On Mar 4, 2007, at 10:42 PM, christine wrote:

Bob,

I’m saying in general- I see a lot of negative posts that sometimes go too far.   You were calling on her statements in a newspaper.  Which is great.  But, then others are guessing her motivations.  No one said- “hey, does anyone have ’s email address- let’s act her directly”.  Right?  I would search all the archives and cut and paste the lines from each emails- but honestly I would rather spend my time finishing up the cover letter I’m working on for the Conference packets that are overdue.   

I don’t know and probably disagree with everything she says.  When she is making statements in the press, she needs to be held accountable.  Like anyone does.  I’m always in awe of your responses and letters to the editor.  What a have a problem with is the discussion afterwards with some posters putting her down and other posters defending her- not talking about facts- but guessing and making excuses.  And then something similar with - and he used to be on this list (or maybe he still is- don’t know).

Then when questions are asked about things that are positive and constructive- they are ignored.  How much talk is there right now about the upcoming hearing in NY?  NONE- except for the A-Champ alert you posted.  I just think we need to move on and do our own thing and build ourselves up- instead of trying to tear others down.  No- we shouldn’t let them get away with murder.  But, we still need to work together and do our thing.  Be it the CDC, ND, AS, NAAR, Hillary or whomever— we still have a job to do.  I just wish we could spend as much time on something productive.  And when I say “we” I don’t mean you Bob.  I mean “we” as in the whole group in general.  Remember the old days of watching EOH move up the list on Amazon?

  

On 3/4/07 10:19 PM, " Krakow " <rkrakow@...> wrote:

Hello ,

First, let me say that I always appreciate your efforts and we have worked very productively together in NY to help our children. Next week, we again will be working together to push the NY legislature to help our children. (I won't be there in person but I have been working on testimony with various persons who are attending, all weekend. We have some very important and creative proposals to make to the legislature, at this hearing and later, as well.)   

I would ask you, who is " guessing what people think. "  My view is you should take public statements at face value. That is what I have done with Autism Speaks and their 'clarification. "  I have not vented – but I have analyzed, exercised critical thinking and challenged public statements. To the best of my recollection most other messages on this list have done the same.  What is wrong with that?

I have not seen AS " bashing " but I have engaged in reasoned criticism of public statements and the promotion of a genetic research and autism etiology agenda. If that should not be discussed on this list, then where should it be discussed? How is that venting? That is public debate in this, the virtual public square. Almost all the messages related to this issue have been non-venting, non-bashing questions and criticism. The questions may be challenging and, to some, that may seem unpleasant or impolite. But challenging questions and debate rarely leans toward politeness and always invites confrontation. But that is the nature of controversy, and I suggest that anyone who has subscribed to this list has entered into a world of controversy. That is one reason why the list exists – as a forum for the " does mercury cause autism " and related controversies.

Seems that such a thing is constructive, even if statements made by particular organizations are challenged. No? The good that can result is clarification of positions and raising awareness of what certain organizations, like Autism Speaks that claims to speak for our children with autism, stand for. That can only result is greater understanding and awareness and that can only be good.

By the way, in answer to your question, I am attending Autism One. In my presentation I will initiate a campaign by A-CHAMP, in conjunction with many organizations both in and out of the autism world, to reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act so that children and adults with vaccine-injury have real access to justice, rather than what exists now, which is an exercise in frustrating our children's civil rights.  Part of the discussion will be legislative initiatives to reform and extend the statute of limitation, provide a vehicle for better discover, better compensation for experts to even the playing field, and more balanced decision-making, among other issues.

For Heidi : I hope that is creative enough an endeavor (if your comments were directed at me. If they were not, then never mind.)

Bob

On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:12 PM, christine wrote:

I agree Heidi.  

 The whole “guessing what people think” is tiring and not very productive.  

 I asked a few days ago who was going to Autism One and no one responded.

 We all need to vent from time to time.  We all need to question authority.

 But, all the AS bashing just cannot result in anything good.  

 

 On 3/4/07 7:51 PM, " elevatordance " <elevatordance@...> wrote:

  

  

 I get it.  You guys don't like Autism Speaks.  I am sure they are well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support them are on this list.  No matter what you think of AS, they are a force to be reckoned with.  I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks.  I respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting off track here.  A more productive use of time would be to analytically figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals in their research radar screen.  Just telling them isn't enough.  We need to get more creative here.  

 If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in speculation in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might  never do.  

 And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the " autism is mercury poisoning " cause.  And in case I'm next, just a reminder that my last name is , not , so please spell it right when you question my integrity as well.  

 Heidi

  

  

From:   Krakow <rkrakow@...>

Reply- EOHarm

 EOHarm

Subject:  Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street Journal

Date:  Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500

>As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ -  

 >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed  

 >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on  

 >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much  

 >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of  

 >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are  

 >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why  

 >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the  

 >interests of our children?

 >

 >RJK

 >On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

 >

 >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

 >  Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

 >  misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

 >  nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

 >  and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

 >  websites where only those of us driven by the charade

 >  would bother to see it?

 >

 >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

 >  Journal

 >  Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

 >  schaferatsprynet

 >  Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

 >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

 >  Journal

 >

 >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

 >

 >  __________________________________________________________

 >  TV dinner still cooling?

 >  Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

 >http://tv./

 >

 >

     

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

They probably keep beating the "genetic drum" to deflect interest and attention from where it should be going, i.e., to environmental triggers and/or causes. Even if various genes are found to be involved, the question remains as to how these genes became damaged for so many people. I believe that the role that vaccines may be playing needs to be seriously examined, for the simple reason that many of these vaccines are being administered to millions of children without adequate safety studies having been conducted. Most vaccines that I have looked up the FDA "labels" for lately, did not have any studies done to see whether these vaccines could impair fertility, and they were not tested for their potential to cause carcinogenicity and mutagenicity. If current vaccines are not being tested for mutagenicity, I wonder how well the vaccines we, the parents, received in the past were tested. Combine what we may have received in the way of vaccines with our

mercury-emitting dental amalgams ( amalgams which do produce mercury vapor which does cross the placental barrier), and add to that mercury which we may be inhaling and ingesting from the fish we eat and from other sources, it's likely a miracle that there are any NT kids left to count. Aasa Krakow <rkrakow@...> wrote: As far as I know the "clarification" is not yet published in WSJ - don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders

why they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the interests of our children?RJKOn Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) themisquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read bynearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)and publish their clarification only on a few obscurewebsites where only those of us driven by the charadewould bother to see it?Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall StreetJournalPosted by: "schaferatsprynet" schafer@...schaferatsprynetFri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall StreetJournalhttp://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php__________________________________________________________TV dinner still cooling?Check out "Tonight's Picks" on

TV.http://tv./

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

You are asking me to be polite and civil and rational and reasoned with people who are profiting from the slaughter of our children. Many of these people would not hesitate to do anything in their power to stop you from being heard. I know, because I have been silenced by the likes of them when I’ve so much as attempted to speak about this in internet political chatrooms. What’s happened with thimerosal is nothing short of genocide. It started out as a horrific mistake, but it became genocide when they took the steps to cover up their mistake. What Alison Singer is doing is nothing short of aiding and abetting people who are responsible for genocide. You may apologise for her if it makes you feel all magnanimous. I don’t intend to be a part of this. I will call her the evil liar that she is. Calmly and politely and with a smile, if you would like. :] Perhaps I am wrong about her motives. Perhaps I will see a very public retraction of her statement in the Wall Street Journal, in which case I will happily take back all that I’ve said here about her.

As for Barry-- has he expressed his desire to turn around Autism Speaks? I worked for some years prior to having children. I never did anything as important as consulting for a major charity organization. However, I was paid to get certain specific tasks accomplished. I was expected to have them done by a certain time, and if I fell terribly short of my deadlines, I could feel pretty confident that I would be looking for a paycheck elsewhere in short order. I sent a letter off to Alison Springer last night. I intend to send one to Barry as

well, and ask him how long I should expect it to be before he’s managed to turn Autism Speaks around. Before the public starts hearing, in the main stream media, that autism is mercury poisoning and is caused in large part by thimerosal in vaccines. I have assumed that he believes this is the case. Perhaps that was my first mistake. Expecting that because he was once working for Generation Rescue, he believed what their organization claimed to believe. Silly me. Perhaps he was merely earning a living. I’ll

let you know if he gets back to me regarding when I can expect some results. This isn’t rocket science we are talking about here, after all. We are simply talking about speaking the truth, and supporting those who do rather than those who don’t. Robin Nemeth elevatordance <elevatordance@...> wrote: I get it. You guys don't like Autism Speaks. I am sure they are well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support them are on this list. No matter what you think of AS, they are a force to be reckoned with. I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks. I respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting off track here. A more productive use of time would be to analytically figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals in their research radar screen. Just telling them isn't enough. We need to get more creative here. If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in speculation in what Alison

Singer meant or didn't mean or might have meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might never do. And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the "autism is mercury poisoning" cause. And in case I'm next, just a reminder that my last name is , not , so please spell it right when you question my integrity as well. Heidi From: Krakow <rkrakowearthlink (DOT) net>Reply- EOHarm EOHarm Subject: Re:

Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street JournalDate: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500>As far as I know the "clarification" is not yet published in WSJ - >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated much >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue of >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders why >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the >interests of our children?>>RJK>On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:>>So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?> Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?)

the> misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by> nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)> and publish their clarification only on a few obscure> websites where only those of us driven by the charade> would bother to see it?>> Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street> Journal> Posted by: "schaferatsprynet" schafersprynet> schaferatsprynet> Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)> Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street> Journal>>http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php>> __________________________________________________________> TV dinner still cooling?> Check out "Tonight's Picks" on

TV.>http://tv./>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Barry is one of the good guys. He's definitely on our side and I will

defend his

integrity from baseless criticism. Accepting a position with A.S., I believe,

was a decision

he made with the intention of helping guide A.S. toward a new direction.

Because of that, I am willing to believe that the seeds of change may very well

exist within

that organization. There may be hope.

I'm taking a " wait and see " stance, but am gravely concerned about the mixed

signals I'm

perceiving.

Autism Speaks must distance themselves from any association or reference to

Offit

and anyone else with industry conflicts. Anyone on the board of directors at

A.S. with

conflicts of interest (even if it's because they benefit from pharmaceutical

advertising)

should either RESOLVE those conflicts or quit the board.

Autism advocacy and research must be done privately without association with

government agencies (which are currently very conflicted) and without

association with

industry.

Succeeding generations are on the line... our children. Our grandchildren. Our

legacy is in

jeopardy.

> >

> >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

> > Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

> > misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

> > nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

> > and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

> > websites where only those of us driven by the charade

> > would bother to see it?

> >

> > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> > Journal

> > Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

> > schaferatsprynet

> > Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

> > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> > Journal

> >

> >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

> >

> > __________________________________________________________

> > TV dinner still cooling?

> > Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

> >http://tv./

> >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Great post, Robin...

I think folks with vaccine injured kids have been told too many

times that they need to be polite. God forbid, we actually start to

take that advice.

Think if your child had been physically violated, maimed or abused.

Would anyone be standing around telling us to be nice to the

perpetrator? Doubtful if not completely ludicrous and cruel. If

anyone took to questioning the fact that our child had been

violated, would they also be worthy of our good manners? Again,

this would be stupid, callous and mean.

If Ms. Singer would intend to full retract her statements in the WSJ

and apologize to the entire autism community, that would be one

thing. She hasn't and I don't believe she will. Again, she is

complicit in marginalizing our children, the problems they face and

the issues we face. And, in the case of children who will

become " autistic " in the future, due to thimerosal in flu vaccines,

she is a co-conspirator in causing their injuries. Sorry folks -

truth hurts!

> >

> >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

> > Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

> > misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

> > nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

> > and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

> > websites where only those of us driven by the charade

> > would bother to see it?

> >

> > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> > Journal

> > Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

> > schaferatsprynet

> > Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

> > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> > Journal

> >

> >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

> >

> > __________________________________________________________

> > TV dinner still cooling?

> > Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

> >http://tv./

> >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Agreed - is just one person but I believe he'll do his level

best to inject truth into AS. He's Andy Shih's worst nightmare...

> > >

> > >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

> > > Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

> > > misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

> > > nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

> > > and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

> > > websites where only those of us driven by the charade

> > > would bother to see it?

> > >

> > > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> > > Journal

> > > Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@

> > > schaferatsprynet

> > > Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

> > > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> > > Journal

> > >

> > >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

> > >

> > > __________________________________________________________

> > > TV dinner still cooling?

> > > Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

> > >http://tv./

> > >

> > >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Bob,

I didn't get a chance to answer you before.

I was not referring specifically to your message when I posted. Sorry if I confused you.

I was not referring specifically to anyone on this list about getting my name wrong, I was making the point that members of the list were speculating about Barry's integrity without any facts to support that opinion. That meant that I could be next. Or you could be next. Any one of us could be next. I don't like that feeling. Has anyone investigated who the top donor to the Schaefer News Report is and whether Lenny might be influenced by that donor? Bob, I don't really understand what Lifespire does but should I be looking into it to see if you have any financial influences? Of course I don't believe any of that, I am just trying to make a point. Any of us that know , know his dedication to the cause and I was offended for him. is at AS because the s liked him and liked his point of view. I don't know why the s don't seem to be able to expand the focus of AS to include the autism/mercury/vaccine connection but I won't automatically assume that they are malicious. They have enough of a say in what goes on to hire . They should have enough juice to say "we believe this has helped Christian, we want to study it" Clearly, there are forces more powerful than them at work here. If it was the GE connection, that will soon be over and we may see some more positive movement. Your email about Bernie Marcus and all of those connections was good work and I need to study it more. I am sad that JB has publicly stated that he is done waiting for AS to change because that means there may be no more hope of that happening. I am sad because that means we have a huge battle ahead. We cannot allow AS to operate as the largest, most well funded Autism organization if they will not look under every stone to identify the cause of autism spectrum disorders. Several listers have posted as if the other organizations can just carry on the fight without AS. I disagree with that. AS must be turned and I don't know how long it will take or exactly how we will do that.

I am not suggesting that we muzzle criticism but some of the posts were pure speculation with no basis in any factual information. Unless we maintain our credibility we only look like lunatic fringe activists. Everyone who believes that the vaccine program has damaged our children has outrage. The trick is to channel that outrage to make our side stronger and not making us look like idiots. This is a war but there are way too many generals trying to fight the war on different fronts. Somehow, someway, everybody has to come together in order to make any progress. We can't let our outrage be used against each other. Only against the enemy. And then used in a controlled, planned, strategic fashion. Putting the accelarator all the way to the floor and driving your car at the wall MAY get you thru the wall but it will more likely total your car and get you severly injured. The more prudent thing to do is to look for ways to get around the wall.

As an example: At first I was pissed off that Alison Singer was going to the IOM meeting. But I didn't willy nilly start complaining about it without thinking it thru. Because there are people on this list who are ONLY on this list to make us look bad. Let me repeat that. There are lurkers on this list who are sending our emails all over and trying to make us look like we are stupid, uninformed and emotional parents. So then I thought that maybe Mark and will be able to discuss things with her and maybe even get her to be an ally. I know that may be Pollyanna of me but the IOM meeting is going to happen with or without us so it is better to support those who are going and suggest strategies that could be used to benefit the cause.

Here is my latest idea: I think that there should be some sort of official request in writing from SAFE MINDS, NAA, MAM, No-Mercury, AChamp, etc, and let Mark or meet with Alison and the request says that we want AS to hold a big conference/meeting with all of the organizations who signed the public statement to convene and present their mission and goals and why they are not satisfied with AS. AS wants to bring everyone under their umbrella so they should be interested in doing this.

I don't have the answers. yet. I'm just asking everyone to think about what they post an extra 10 seconds before they hit send.

thanks,Heidi

From: Krakow <rkrakow@...>Reply- EOHarm eoharm Subject: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street JournalDate: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:32:40 -0500>Heidi (I have never called you "", are you referring to >me???),>>Since your message was posted in response to my message, I would >point out that it does not appear responsive to the points I have >made in my message, or others I have made in this thread. I am, >therefore, puzzled by your message. Are you directing your comments >to me or my messages? If so, I suggest your comments are misplaced. >If directed to others, I cannot comment, but I sure would appreciate >a clarification as to whether your message is responsive to mine.>>My comments have nothing to do with "liking" Autism Speaks or a >particular person associated with Autism Speaks. In fact, I don't >think my messages have ever discussed a particular person, at least >not by name. My points focus not on "like" or "dislike" but >articulate disagreement with the organization's publicly stated >positions. I believe the best way to "analytically figure out how to >motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals on their >research radar screen" and to support positions that reflect our >children's interests, is to make clear what the AS positions are >and to criticize them where appropriate. If they are a "force to >reckon with" would you then suggest we should muzzle criticism? How >is that reckoning with their positions?>>I also have no idea what you mean about "unemotional fact-based >communication," at least insofar as my messages are concerned. I >don't see much "emotionalism" in my posts - just attempts at >reasoned statement of position and sound argument. If you take my >statements as emotional rants, perhaps I have failed in >communicating to you my views. I am not speculating as to what >Autism Speaks meant or might have meant. I take their statements on >face value, and with respect to the recent discussion of genetics, >have tried to explain a counter-view of genetics. I fully agree that >Ed Yazbak stated it better! which is why I was happy to post his >message about genetics.>>The purpose of this list, as I see it, is to discuss public >positions that affect our kids. I would say that challenge of >statements on genetics, and raising questions about misleading >promotion of scientific studies claiming autism has a genetic >etiology, are appropriate issues to raise on this list. I am not >worried about "lurkers" reading these messages. This is an open >discussion and here, at least, the First Amendment to the U.S. >Constitution flourishes.>>What do you mean about "being creative." It may be presumptuous of >you to suggest that if someone initiates a discussion criticizing an >organization's position on genetics that somehow this means that >this statement is the only thing being done by that individual to >advance a counter-view. Is that what you are suggesting? I shall >assume your comment on this and the others were not directed to me. >Perhaps you can clarify that. This is a list for expression of >views. What would you have discussed here?>>By the way, since you posted your comments in response to mine, I >would like to make as clear as possible that I have never questioned >the integrity of Barry, publicly or privately. If you read my >posts I have stated nothing but praise for Barry and his >efforts,and have said so in response to questions by others.>>If your message is directed to someone else please so indicate >because I am, indeed, puzzled that you submitted your message in >response to mine.>>Bob Krakow>>On Mar 4, 2007, at 7:51 PM, elevatordance wrote:>>I get it. You guys don't like Autism Speaks. I am sure they are >well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support >them are on this list. No matter what you think of AS, they are a >force to be reckoned with. I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send >unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks. I >respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting >off track here. A more productive use of time would be to >analytically figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to >including heavy metals in their research radar screen. Just telling >them isn't enough. We need to get more creative here. >>If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the >purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in >speculation in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have >meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might never >do. >>And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of > Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and >will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the >"autism is mercury poisoning" cause. And in case I'm next, just a >reminder that my last name is , not , so please spell it >right when you question my integrity as well. >>Heidi>> >>>> >>From: Krakow <rkrakow@...>>>Reply- EOHarm >> EOHarm >>Subject: Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement >>re: Wall Street Journal>>Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500>> >As far as I know the "clarification" is not yet published in WSJ >>->> >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed>> >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on>> >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated >>much>> >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue >>of>> >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are>> >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders >>why>> >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the>> >interests of our children?>> >>> >RJK>> >On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:>> >>> >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?>> > Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the>> > misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by>> > nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)>> > and publish their clarification only on a few obscure>> > websites where only those of us driven by the charade>> > would bother to see it?>> >>> > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street>> > Journal>> > Posted by: "schaferatsprynet" schafer@...>> > schaferatsprynet>> > Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)>> > Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street>> > Journal>> >>> >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php>> >>> > __________________________________________________________>> > TV dinner still cooling?>> > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on TV.>> >http://tv./>> >>> >>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Heidi,

As you know, I think highly of Barry and have said so.

You can get more information about Lifespire at www.lifespire.org

In response to your comment about one organization bringing everyone

under their umbrella, there are other umbrellas under which to stand. I

find it more effective to stand with those who share - or at least

respect - my experience about how my son got sick.

Best,

Bob

On Mar 10, 2007, at 10:07 AM, elevatordance wrote:

Bob,

I didn't get a chance to answer you before.

I was not referring specifically to your message when I posted.  Sorry

if I confused you. 

I was not referring specifically to anyone on this list about getting

my name wrong, I was making the point that members of the list were

speculating about Barry's integrity without any facts to support

that opinion.  That meant that I could be next.  Or you could be

next.  Any one of us could be next.  I don't like that feeling. Has

anyone investigated who the top donor to the Schaefer News Report is

and whether Lenny might be influenced by that donor?  Bob, I don't

really understand what Lifespire does but should I be looking into it

to see if you  have any financial influences?  Of course I don't

believe any of that, I am just trying to make a point. Any of us that

know , know his dedication to the cause and I was offended for

him.  is at AS because the s liked him and liked his point

of view.  I don't know why the s don't seem to be able to expand

the focus of AS to include the autism/mercury/vaccine connection but I

won't automatically assume that they are malicious.  They have enough

of a say in what goes on to hire .  They should have enough juice

to say " we believe this has helped Christian, we want to study

it "    Clearly, there are forces more powerful than them at work here. 

If it was the GE connection, that will soon be over and we may see some

more positive movement.  Your email about Bernie Marcus and all of

those connections was good work and I need to study it more.  I am sad

that JB has publicly stated that he is done waiting for AS to change

because that means there may be no more hope of that happening.  I am

sad because that means we have a huge battle ahead.  We cannot allow AS

to operate as the largest, most well funded Autism organization if they

will not look under every stone to identify the cause of autism

spectrum disorders.  Several listers have posted as if the other

organizations can just carry on the fight without AS.  I disagree with

that.  AS must be turned and I don't know how long it will take or

exactly how we will do that. 

I am not suggesting that we muzzle criticism but some of the posts were

pure speculation with no basis in any factual information. Unless we

maintain our credibility we only look like lunatic fringe activists. 

Everyone who believes that the vaccine program has damaged our children

has outrage.  The trick is to channel that outrage to make our side

stronger and not making  us look like idiots.  This is a war but there

are way too many generals trying to fight the war on different fronts. 

Somehow, someway, everybody has to come together in order to make any

progress.  We can't let our outrage be used against each other.  Only

against the enemy.  And then used in a controlled, planned, strategic

fashion.  Putting the accelarator all the way to the floor and driving

your car at the wall MAY get you thru the wall but it will more likely

total your car and get  you severly injured.  The more prudent thing to

do is to look for ways to get around the wall. 

As an example: At first I was pissed off that Alison Singer was going

to the IOM meeting.  But I didn't willy nilly start complaining about

it without thinking it thru.  Because there are people on this list who

are ONLY on this list to make us look bad.  Let me repeat that.  There

are lurkers on this list who are sending our emails all over and trying

to make us look like we are stupid, uninformed and emotional parents. 

So then I thought that maybe Mark and will be able to discuss

things with her and maybe even get her to be an ally.  I know that may

be Pollyanna of me but the IOM meeting is going to happen with or

without us so it is better to support those who are going and suggest

strategies that could be used to benefit the cause. 

Here is my latest idea: I think that there should be some sort of

official request in writing from SAFE MINDS, NAA, MAM, No-Mercury,

AChamp, etc, and let Mark or meet with Alison  and the request

says that we want AS to hold a big conference/meeting with all of the

organizations who signed the public statement to convene and present

their mission and goals and why they are not satisfied with AS.  AS

wants to bring everyone under their umbrella so they should be

interested in doing this.

I don't have the answers.  yet.  I'm just asking everyone to think

about what they post an extra 10 seconds before they hit send.

thanks,

Heidi

 

> From:   Krakow <rkrakow@...>

> Reply-To:  EOHarm

> To:  eoharm

> Subject:   Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall

> Street Journal

> Date:  Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:32:40 -0500

> >Heidi (I have never called you " " , are you referring to

> >me???),

> >

> >Since your message was posted in response to my message, I would

> >point out that it does not appear responsive to the points I have

> >made in my message, or others I have made in this thread. I am,

> >therefore, puzzled by your message. Are you directing your comments

> >to me or my messages? If so, I suggest your comments are misplaced.

> >If directed to others, I cannot comment, but I sure would appreciate

> >a clarification as to whether your message is responsive to mine.

> >

> >My comments have nothing to do with " liking " Autism Speaks or a

> >particular person associated with Autism Speaks. In fact, I don't

> >think my messages have ever discussed a particular person, at least

> >not by name.  My points focus not on " like " or " dislike " but

> >articulate disagreement  with the organization's publicly stated

> >positions. I believe the best way to " analytically figure out how to

> >motivate AS to be more receptive to including heavy metals on their

> >research radar screen " and to support positions that reflect our

> >children's  interests, is to make clear what the AS positions are

> >and to criticize them where appropriate.  If they are a " force to

> >reckon with " would you then suggest we should muzzle criticism? How

> >is that reckoning with their positions?

> >

> >I also have no idea what you mean about " unemotional fact-based

> >communication, " at least insofar as my messages are concerned.  I

> >don't see much " emotionalism " in my posts - just attempts at

> >reasoned statement of position and sound argument.  If you take my

> >statements as emotional rants, perhaps I have failed in

> >communicating to you my views. I am not speculating as to what

> >Autism Speaks meant or might have meant. I take their statements on

> >face value, and with respect to the recent discussion of genetics,

> >have tried to explain a counter-view of genetics. I fully agree that

> >Ed Yazbak stated it better! which is why I was happy to post his

> >message about genetics.

> >

> >The purpose of this list, as I see it, is to discuss public

> >positions that affect our kids. I would say that challenge of

> >statements on genetics, and raising questions about misleading

> >promotion of scientific studies claiming autism has a genetic

> >etiology, are appropriate issues to raise on this list.  I am not

> >worried about " lurkers " reading these messages. This is an open

> >discussion and here, at least, the First Amendment to the U.S.

> >Constitution flourishes.

> >

> >What do  you mean about " being creative. " It may be presumptuous of

> >you to suggest that if someone initiates a discussion criticizing an

> >organization's position on genetics that somehow this means that

> >this statement is the only thing being done by that individual to

> >advance a counter-view.  Is that what you are suggesting?  I shall

> >assume your comment on this and the others were not directed to me.

> >Perhaps you can clarify that.  This is a list for expression of

> >views. What would you have discussed here?

> >

> >By the way, since you posted your comments in response to mine, I

> >would like to make as clear as possible that I have never questioned

> >the integrity of Barry, publicly or privately. If you read my

> >posts I have stated nothing but praise for Barry and his

> >efforts,and have said so in response to questions by others.

> >

> >If your message is directed to someone else please so indicate

> >because I am, indeed, puzzled that you submitted your message in

> >response to mine.

> >

> >Bob Krakow

> >

> >On Mar 4, 2007, at 7:51 PM, elevatordance wrote:

> >

> >I get it.  You guys don't like Autism Speaks.  I am sure they are

> >well aware of your opinions as they and other lurkers who support

> >them are on this list.  No matter what you think of AS, they are a

> >force to be reckoned with.  I support Dr Yazbak's effort to send

> >unemotional fact based communication directly to Autism Speaks.  I

> >respect everyone's right to post their opinion but we are getting

> >off track here.  A more productive use of time would be to

> >analytically figure out how to motivate AS to be more receptive to

> >including heavy metals in their research radar screen.  Just telling

> >them isn't enough.  We need to get more creative here. 

> >

> >If I were the moderator of this list, I would remind the list of the

> >purpose of the list and would recommend some restraint in

> >speculation in what Alison Singer meant or didn't mean or might have

> >meant or what Autism Speaks might do or might not do or might  never

> >do. 

> >

> >And I would ask the list not to publicly question the integrity of

> > Barry who has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate and

> >will no doubt demonstrate in the future his dedication to the

> > " autism is mercury poisoning " cause.  And in case I'm next, just a

> >reminder that my last name is , not , so please spell it

> >right when you question my integrity as well. 

> >

> >Heidi

> >

> > 

> >

> >

> >

> > 

> >>From:   Krakow <rkrakow@...>

> >>Reply-To:  EOHarm

> >>To:  EOHarm

> >>Subject:  Re: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement

> >>re: Wall Street Journal

> >>Date:  Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:52 -0500

> >> >As far as I know the " clarification " is not yet published in WSJ

> >>-

> >> >don't know whether it was submitted. But as Lenny Schafer pointed

> >> >out it appears that AS continues to place undue emphasis on

> >> >genetics, and for reasons that I point out and Ed Yazbak stated

> >>much

> >> >more effectively, AS's public relations statements on this issue

> >>of

> >> >genetics, as well as the conclusions of its funded studies, are

> >> >wrong and unsupported by prevailing scientific data. One wonders

> >>why

> >> >they continue to beat the genetics drum. How does that serve the

> >> >interests of our children?

> >> >

> >> >RJK

> >> >On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Dad Fourkids wrote:

> >> >

> >> >So did Singer get her retraction published in the WSJ?

> >> >  Or did Autism Speaks allow (or encourage?) the

> >> >  misquote in the high-profile WSJ (which is read by

> >> >  nearly all the bigshots, movers and shakers in the US)

> >> >  and publish their clarification only on a few obscure

> >> >  websites where only those of us driven by the charade

> >> >  would bother to see it?

> >> >

> >> >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> >> >  Journal

> >> >  Posted by: " schaferatsprynet " schafer@...

> >> >  schaferatsprynet

> >> >  Fri Mar 2, 2007 7:23 pm (PST)

> >> >  Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

> >> >  Journal

> >> >

> >> >http://www.autismsp eaks.org/ wsj_statement. php

> >> >

> >> >  __________________________________________________________

> >> >  TV dinner still cooling?

> >> >  Check out " Tonight's Picks " on TV.

> >> >http://tv./

> >> >

> >> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

RE: Re:Autism Speaks' Clarification Statement re: Wall Street

Journal

Bob,

I didn't get a chance to answer you before.

I was not referring specifically to your message when I posted. Sorry

if I confused you.

I was not referring specifically to anyone on this list about getting

my name wrong, I was making the point that members of the list were

speculating about Barry's integrity without any facts to support

that opinion. That meant that I could be next. Or you could be next.

Any one of us could be next. I don't like that feeling. Has anyone

investigated who the top donor to the Schaefer News Report is and

whether Lenny might be influenced by that donor?

-----------------------------------

OK, I confess my influences. The biggest financial donor to the

Schafer Autism Report has been my son Izak. For ten years, his

disabilities " pension " funded the daily production of the newsletter.

He paid for the computer, the internet connection, the replacement

mice and back-up disks. The next largest money contributor far and

away is Bernie Rimland and the Autism Research Institute. Do these

contributions influence my politics? You bethca! . . .down to my last

drop of sweat and blood. I have also contributed about 20,000 hours

of my own unpaid time putting the newsletter together over the first

ten years. But some people are never happy no matter how many push-ups

you do for the cause. Luckily, there are so many more who are

appreciative and are not threatened by my personal style of

directness, including my transcendented autism spectrum sense of humor.

Lenny S-c-h-a-f-e-r (wink)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I sent an email to both Alison Singer and Barry. I haven't heard

back from either of them. I understand that Alison's been out of the

office, so that is not surprising. I see no reason why they should feel

obligated to respond. I do not hold any high ranking spot in any large

organization--I am just a person who is sure I have Aspergers. Even

though I still have access to the old email account I was sure to tell

them both that I now have a new email address, just to be sure that I

wouldn't miss any response they might have for me. I will forward, to

the group, the emails I sent to and to Alison.

It's early yet. I will let you know if they've anything to say to me. I

don't expect they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

just testing email

> I sent an email to both Alison Singer and Barry. I haven't heard

> back from either of them. I understand that Alison's been out of the

> office, so that is not surprising. I see no reason why they should feel

> obligated to respond. I do not hold any high ranking spot in any large

> organization--I am just a person who is sure I have Aspergers. Even

> though I still have access to the old email account I was sure to tell

> them both that I now have a new email address, just to be sure that I

> wouldn't miss any response they might have for me. I will forward, to

> the group, the emails I sent to and to Alison.

>

> It's early yet. I will let you know if they've anything to say to me. I

> don't expect they will.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

robin nemeth <r_nemeth@...> wrote:

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:33:44 -0800 (PST)

From: robin nemeth <r_nemeth@...>

Subject: Wall Street Journal quote and clarification

asinger@...

You’ve clarified your statement to the Wall Street Journal, on the

Autism Speaks website. This, however, is insufficient. You had an

opportunity to reach hundreds of thousands of people. You used that

opportunity to help those whose agenda is to profit from the poisoning

of our children. How many people do you think will read the

clarification of your statement that is on the Autism Speaks website?

Do you think that parents of autistic children are going to be less

offended by being told that they have simply passed on bad genes than

they were at being told that they are at fault for their child’s autism

because they let their child watch too much television, or because they

are cold, refrigerator parents? Do you have any notion at all of how

offensive I, as a person who once considered myself a person with

Aspergers but now considers myself a person who has been mercury

poisoned by my government, finds your ridiculous statement to the Wall

Street Journal?

If I had been interviewed for a story in the Wall Street Journal, and I

misspoke, and I left the impression that the only cause of autism is

bad genes, or if I’d been misquoted, or had my words taken out of

context, I would be doing everything within my power to make sure that

this was corrected. To make sure that my real intentions, my real

meanings, were properly conveyed. Publicly. Through the main stream

media and the press. Not on some website that far fewer people (and

people who are for the most part already largely informed regarding

this issue, anyway), might happen upon.

Will I be seeing a statement from you any time soon on the television,

or the radio, or quoted in the press, in which you state your belief

that environmental triggers should be looked into as a cause of autism?

Could I dare to hope that you might want to raise awareness about

mercury, or possibly even the horrible ‘t’ word – thimerosal?

Do you believe that mercury could contribute to developmental and

neurological disorders? Are you aware that there are a huge number of

parents and scientists who do? Or am I to believe that you’ve never

heard of the word ‘thimerosal’? Why do you continue to so adamantly

insist on ignoring the big huge stinking gorilla that is sitting right

in the middle of the parlor? If you have heard of the theory but

believe it to be a crackpot theory, even a crackpot theory warrants a

mention, once in a blue moon. Unless it is a theory that you would

prefer would just go away. Unless it is a theory that you, like the

pharmaceutical makers, are afraid of.

I understand that you have a child with autism. I will not pretend to

understand what it must be like to have a child with autism. I will

tell you that I understand what it is like to be afraid of having a

child with autism. To be told that your child might have autism. To

watch a child unable to interact with her peers. And although I am not

diagnosed with Aspergers, I understand what it is like to have it.

How can you look at yourself in the mirror, knowing that you are helping

the people who’ve caused your child to be the way he or she is? Nobody

can be inside another person’s head, but I will tell you that it isn’t

easy being mercury poisoned. It hasn’t been easy for me, and it isn’t

easy for my children, and we have only the most minor of symptoms.

Imagine what it must be like to have severe problems? Imagine what it

must be like to have severe gastro intestinal pain? To be unable to

interact with the people around you. I know you probably have done

this, tried to imagine this.

How can you live with yourself knowing that you are helping the people

who’ve done this to your child?

Do you tell yourself that the skull and crossbones on the Thimerosal

bottle means nothing? That it’s the concentration that makes a poison,

and it’s not high enough in vaccines to cause harm, even though

according to the material safety data sheet concentrations like the

ones in vaccines are too high to be flushed down your toilet? Do you

ignore the fact that there were no safety studies on Thimerosal prior

to it’s use in vaccines? Do you ignore the thousands of papers which

discuss the toxicity of Thimerosal? The graphs which show an increase

in autism with an increase in thimerosal exposure? You and the vast

majority of the people and the dollars in your organization ignore all

of these things in order to concentrate on a search for the genes that

make a few people slightly more prone to the affects of a neurotoxin

than other people. What you and the government officials and the

scientists who are focusing their efforts on genetics are doing is akin

to blaming the people in Auschwitz for their own deaths. Because they

had the bad misfortune of having particularly bad genes. It must just

be that those jewish genes are particularly susceptible to the affects

of nerve gas. Oh well, too bad for the jews.

You ignore the efforts of the manufacturers to buy up the media; that

most of the commercials on my nightly news on any station I watch in

the evening are sponsored by the same companies who appear to now be

sponsoring you and your organization. You ignore the efforts of

manufacturers to buy indemnity from Congress, for the harm their

products cause. You ignore the fact that the unvaccinated children

with autism or asthma are almost nonexistent. You ignore all of the

conflicts of interest. With two clicks of my mouse I can show that the

safety study of Thimerosal that was paid for by the CDC was conducted

by the very same people in Denmark who’ve profited from the selling of

Thimerosal containing vaccines in the US . You ignore the fact that

data has been kept from the public, in violation of the freedom of

information act, or else lost. You ignore the fact that the CDC has

said mercury should be removed from vaccines, but then has done nothing

to enforce that this occurs, but rather backpedals, now, in an effort to

protect it’s clients in the drug industry.

I can’t fathom any of this, but what I really can’t fathom is how you

manage to ignore the fact that you are helping the people who’ve

destroyed your child.

I don’t believe that people go to hell when they die, for the sins that

they’ve committed. I believe that they create their own hell here on

earth, for the sins that they’ve committed. The hell you’ve created

must be a horrible one indeed. It is only too bad that your child must

live in it with you.

Robin Nemeth

*****

robin nemeth <r_nemeth@...> wrote:

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:00:50 -0800 (PST)

From: robin nemeth <r_nemeth@...>

Subject: Alison Singer's Wall Street Journal statement

kevin.barry.gr@...

I understand that you’ve resigned from your position with Generation

Rescue in order to work for Autism Speaks, and avoid any apparent

conflicts of interest.

When you were with Generation Rescue, I assumed that that meant that you

believed that autism was mercury poisoning and caused in large part by

thimerosal in vaccines. Am I to believe that you still believe this to

be the case?

Certainly Alison Singer’s statement to the Wall Street Journal is

inconsistent with the beliefs espoused by Generation Rescue. But she is

not speaking for you, she is only speaking for herself and the

organization that she works for.

Will you continue to consult for Autism Speaks if these are the sorts of

statements that they continue to make prominent with the public?

I don’t understand what exactly it is that you are getting paid for

doing, as a consultant for Autism Speaks. Some have suggested that you

will be trying to turn around the organization’s tendency to aid and

abet the pharmaceutical manufacturers and government officials who have

poisoned hundreds of thousands of children. Is this the case? When might

I expect that the public will see some positive results regarding

this--some clear statements about the role of thimerosal, widely

disseminated via television or radio or the press (as widely as was

Alison’s ridiculous statement to the Wall Street Journal), from Autism

Speaks?

Robin Nemeth

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I sent e-mails on JB's suggestions letting them know how I feel about

Autism Speaks to Mark Roithmayr, Bob and Suzanne . After a

few days Bob & Suzanne's bounced back to me as undeliverable. Anybody

else try to use their e-mail addresses through Autism Speaks?

Anyways, I like you Robin am a nobody in the big autism piture. But, I

do have a son with autism- if that counts for anything.

>

> I sent an email to both Alison Singer and Barry. I haven't heard

> back from either of them. I understand that Alison's been out of the

> office, so that is not surprising. I see no reason why they should

feel

> obligated to respond. I do not hold any high ranking spot in any large

> organization--I am just a person who is sure I have Aspergers. Even

> though I still have access to the old email account I was sure to tell

> them both that I now have a new email address, just to be sure that I

> wouldn't miss any response they might have for me. I will forward, to

> the group, the emails I sent to and to Alison.

>

> It's early yet. I will let you know if they've anything to say to me.

I

> don't expect they will.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...