Response re: IOM report to the Parents of Children with Autism

[Guest guest]

Dear Parent of a Wonderful, Special Child with Autism

The recent report IOM represents more of the onslaught of " expert "

opinions you have probably heard generalizing the medical condition of

children with autism and more importantly, your own wonderful, special

child. As a researcher, I have personally analyzed the results of much

of the epidemiology on both sides of the debate, including importantly,

the studies that the IOM states that do not support causation between

thimerosal exposure through vaccinations and autism. Curiously, each of

these studies (in contrast to many of the studies supporting causation)

is marked by the following characteristics:

1. Conflict of interest - from perhaps as benign as a position of " we

need greater preponderance of vaccines and thus quell any information

against them " to as gross and improper as study authors directly tied to

millions of personal and research dollars to support studies designed a

priori to protect the use of any and all vaccinations.

2. Missing baseline data - these studies at best show previously

stratified and massaged data (e.g., Madsen et al. 2003 Pediatrics,

Verstraeten et al. 2003 Pediatrics, among others) as the basis of their

study. This is indeed a flawed method for statistical analysis as your

original data must be in the most pristine state possible.

3. Use of rather capricious data treatment methods - this includes the

accounting for cohorts who could receive a diagnosis of autism at as

young as 3 months of age, which all of us parents (and pediatricians

brave enough to be honest) know is preposterous (see direct quote from

Dr. , University of Washington at the Feb. 9, 2004 IOM

Meeting on thimerosal in vaccinations as well as subsequent quotes by

Dr. DeStefano admitting that cohorts in the Verstraeten et al.

2003 Pediatrics study were indeed too young to receive an autism

diagnosis - as reported by Neil Munro, Missing the Mercury Menace,

National Journal, Jan. 3, 2004).

4. Faulty conclusions based on presented data and methods - several

studies deny the plausibility of a connection between thimerosal

exposure and autism when there data support at best the fact that a

connection based on their own study would be indeterminate at best.

Fortunately, Dr. Verstraeten of GSK stepped forward in a Letter

to the Editor of Pediatrics (Feb, 2004) and appropriately made this

clarification concerning his previous study (Verstraeten et al. 2003,

Pediatrics) which was peddled at the Feb. 9, 2004 IOM meeting, amidst

much confusion about the study's interpretation between Verstraeten

co-authors, Dr. and Dr. DeStefano. Despite his

involvement the cover-up of causation data which is directly the

responsibility of the CDC's National Immunization Program, I consider

Dr. Verstraeten's Feb. 2004 Letter to the Editor, indeed a brave and

appropriate action showing more duty to true science than facile

politics.

What should our response be individually? Simple - Trust your own

conclusions about your wonderful, special child. You are your own

child's best expert, despite your educational background and experience

level. Get your child's lab results and go through them directly until

you develop a solid understanding and conclusion based on your own

analysis of what " experts " tell you! Unfortunately, the medical system

in general with their intent for self-protection, population-based

rather than point-of-care practice and attention to liability shielding

has created a most-likely unintended attitude of devaluing the parents'

input in their own children's medical, emotional, therapeutic and

educational lives. I don't want to judge this as truly intentional,

because honestly, within specific instances, it is not mine to assess -

it is yours as the parents of your own terrific kids. Unfortunately,

this unintended attitude has created a " medical knowledge " class dynamic

that at its core is indeed eugenics - caring for a population as a whole

while ignoring and devaluing subclasses that do not fall into this

inclusive " population care " paradigm.

However, that doesn't necessarily matter for your own beautiful kids.

This is what matters: " This is the true joy in life, the being used for

a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of

nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and

grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making

you happy. " Bernard Shaw.

Be a force of nature for your amazing wonderful kids. It's the best

choice ever for all of you hero parents! Trust your own instincts and

conclusions!

All my love!

S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E.

509-366-2269

brian@...

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for the in-depth analysis and clear delineation of the

deliberately misleading methodologies whereby the Vaccine Zealots and

their funders misshape date before influentially running to the press.

Like Al Capone hooks up with Enron's strategists, and major media bows

unto enforced doctrine.

Hooker, S wrote:

>Dear Parent of a Wonderful, Special Child with Autism

>

>The recent report IOM represents more of the onslaught of " expert "

>opinions you have probably heard generalizing the medical condition of

>children with autism and more importantly, your own wonderful, special

>child. As a researcher, I have personally analyzed the results of much

>of the epidemiology on both sides of the debate, including importantly,

>the studies that the IOM states that do not support causation between

>thimerosal exposure through vaccinations and autism. Curiously, each of

>these studies (in contrast to many of the studies supporting causation)

>is marked by the following characteristics:

>

>1. Conflict of interest - from perhaps as benign as a position of " we

>need greater preponderance of vaccines and thus quell any information

>against them " to as gross and improper as study authors directly tied to

>millions of personal and research dollars to support studies designed a

>priori to protect the use of any and all vaccinations.

>

>2. Missing baseline data - these studies at best show previously

>stratified and massaged data (e.g., Madsen et al. 2003 Pediatrics,

>Verstraeten et al. 2003 Pediatrics, among others) as the basis of their

>study. This is indeed a flawed method for statistical analysis as your

>original data must be in the most pristine state possible.

>

>3. Use of rather capricious data treatment methods - this includes the

>accounting for cohorts who could receive a diagnosis of autism at as

>young as 3 months of age, which all of us parents (and pediatricians

>brave enough to be honest) know is preposterous (see direct quote from

>Dr. , University of Washington at the Feb. 9, 2004 IOM

>Meeting on thimerosal in vaccinations as well as subsequent quotes by

>Dr. DeStefano admitting that cohorts in the Verstraeten et al.

>2003 Pediatrics study were indeed too young to receive an autism

>diagnosis - as reported by Neil Munro, Missing the Mercury Menace,

>National Journal, Jan. 3, 2004).

>

>4. Faulty conclusions based on presented data and methods - several

>studies deny the plausibility of a connection between thimerosal

>exposure and autism when there data support at best the fact that a

>connection based on their own study would be indeterminate at best.

>Fortunately, Dr. Verstraeten of GSK stepped forward in a Letter

>to the Editor of Pediatrics (Feb, 2004) and appropriately made this

>clarification concerning his previous study (Verstraeten et al. 2003,

>Pediatrics) which was peddled at the Feb. 9, 2004 IOM meeting, amidst

>much confusion about the study's interpretation between Verstraeten

>co-authors, Dr. and Dr. DeStefano. Despite his

>involvement the cover-up of causation data which is directly the

>responsibility of the CDC's National Immunization Program, I consider

>Dr. Verstraeten's Feb. 2004 Letter to the Editor, indeed a brave and

>appropriate action showing more duty to true science than facile

>politics.

>

>What should our response be individually? Simple - Trust your own

>conclusions about your wonderful, special child. You are your own

>child's best expert, despite your educational background and experience

>level. Get your child's lab results and go through them directly until

>you develop a solid understanding and conclusion based on your own

>analysis of what " experts " tell you! Unfortunately, the medical system

>in general with their intent for self-protection, population-based

>rather than point-of-care practice and attention to liability shielding

>has created a most-likely unintended attitude of devaluing the parents'

>input in their own children's medical, emotional, therapeutic and

>educational lives. I don't want to judge this as truly intentional,

>because honestly, within specific instances, it is not mine to assess -

>it is yours as the parents of your own terrific kids. Unfortunately,

>this unintended attitude has created a " medical knowledge " class dynamic

>that at its core is indeed eugenics - caring for a population as a whole

>while ignoring and devaluing subclasses that do not fall into this

>inclusive " population care " paradigm.

>

>However, that doesn't necessarily matter for your own beautiful kids.

>This is what matters: " This is the true joy in life, the being used for

>a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of

>nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and

>grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making

>you happy. " Bernard Shaw.

>

>Be a force of nature for your amazing wonderful kids. It's the best

>choice ever for all of you hero parents! Trust your own instincts and

>conclusions!

>

>All my love!

>

>

>

>

> S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E.

>509-366-2269

>brian@...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As an errata, the Verstraeten letter to the editor in Pediatrics

appeared in April, 2004, not Feb. 2004.

All my best!

> Response re: IOM report to the Parents of Children with

> Autism

> Importance: High

>

> Dear Parent of a Wonderful, Special Child with Autism

>

> The recent report IOM represents more of the onslaught of " expert "

> opinions you have probably heard generalizing the medical condition of

> children with autism and more importantly, your own wonderful, special

> child. As a researcher, I have personally analyzed the results of

> much of the epidemiology on both sides of the debate, including

> importantly, the studies that the IOM states that do not support

> causation between thimerosal exposure through vaccinations and autism.

> Curiously, each of these studies (in contrast to many of the studies

> supporting causation) is marked by the following characteristics:

>

> 1. Conflict of interest - from perhaps as benign as a position of " we

> need greater preponderance of vaccines and thus quell any information

> against them " to as gross and improper as study authors directly tied

> to millions of personal and research dollars to support studies

> designed a priori to protect the use of any and all vaccinations.

>

> 2. Missing baseline data - these studies at best show previously

> stratified and massaged data (e.g., Madsen et al. 2003 Pediatrics,

> Verstraeten et al. 2003 Pediatrics, among others) as the basis of

> their study. This is indeed a flawed method for statistical analysis

> as your original data must be in the most pristine state possible.

>

> 3. Use of rather capricious data treatment methods - this includes

> the accounting for cohorts who could receive a diagnosis of autism at

> as young as 3 months of age, which all of us parents (and

> pediatricians brave enough to be honest) know is preposterous (see

> direct quote from Dr. , University of Washington at the

> Feb. 9, 2004 IOM Meeting on thimerosal in vaccinations as well as

> subsequent quotes by Dr. DeStefano admitting that cohorts in the

> Verstraeten et al. 2003 Pediatrics study were indeed too young to

> receive an autism diagnosis - as reported by Neil Munro, Missing the

> Mercury Menace, National Journal, Jan. 3, 2004).

>

> 4. Faulty conclusions based on presented data and methods - several

> studies deny the plausibility of a connection between thimerosal

> exposure and autism when there data support at best the fact that a

> connection based on their own study would be indeterminate at best.

> Fortunately, Dr. Verstraeten of GSK stepped forward in a Letter

> to the Editor of Pediatrics (Feb, 2004) and appropriately made this

> clarification concerning his previous study (Verstraeten et al. 2003,

> Pediatrics) which was peddled at the Feb. 9, 2004 IOM meeting, amidst

> much confusion about the study's interpretation between Verstraeten

> co-authors, Dr. and Dr. DeStefano. Despite his

> involvement the cover-up of causation data which is directly the

> responsibility of the CDC's National Immunization Program, I consider

> Dr. Verstraeten's Feb. 2004 Letter to the Editor, indeed a brave and

> appropriate action showing more duty to true science than facile

> politics.

>

> What should our response be individually? Simple - Trust your own

> conclusions about your wonderful, special child. You are your own

> child's best expert, despite your educational background and

> experience level. Get your child's lab results and go through them

> directly until you develop a solid understanding and conclusion based

> on your own analysis of what " experts " tell you! Unfortunately, the

> medical system in general with their intent for self-protection,

> population-based rather than point-of-care practice and attention to

> liability shielding has created a most-likely unintended attitude of

> devaluing the parents' input in their own children's medical,

> emotional, therapeutic and educational lives. I don't want to judge

> this as truly intentional, because honestly, within specific

> instances, it is not mine to assess - it is yours as the parents of

> your own terrific kids. Unfortunately, this unintended attitude has

> created a " medical knowledge " class dynamic that at its core is indeed

> eugenics - caring for a population as a whole while ignoring and

> devaluing subclasses that do not fall into this inclusive " population

> care " paradigm.

>

> However, that doesn't necessarily matter for your own beautiful kids.

> This is what matters: " This is the true joy in life, the being used

> for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a

> force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments

> and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to

> making you happy. " Bernard Shaw.

>

> Be a force of nature for your amazing wonderful kids. It's the best

> choice ever for all of you hero parents! Trust your own instincts and

> conclusions!

>

> All my love!

>

>

>

>

> S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E.

> 509-366-2269

> brian@...

[Guest guest]

" Trust your own instincts and

> conclusions! "

My conclusion is...My son was poisoned by a pharmecutical company

that is being protected by the government. What can I do about it?

Will I be considered unpatriotic for fighting for my sons justice?

Pharmecutical companies should not be above the law, They poisoned

my child and thousands of other children, They should be held

accountable for what they did. If I commited an assault on anyones

life, you can be sure, I would be put in prison. I really truly

wanted someone to go to prison for what they did, But that will

never happen. I will do everything I can to expose these criminals

to the world. There are thousands upon thousands of children who

have been poisoned by these companies. Some kids have died, some

are profound,or moderate,and some have mild symptoms. The point is

your child was poisoned!

Donna, Mom to , Poisoned in utero by mercury through a rhogam

injection.

> As an errata, the Verstraeten letter to the editor in Pediatrics

> appeared in April, 2004, not Feb. 2004.

> All my best!

>

>

> > Response re: IOM report to the Parents of Children

with

> > Autism

> > Importance: High

> >

> > Dear Parent of a Wonderful, Special Child with Autism

> >

> > The recent report IOM represents more of the onslaught

of " expert "

> > opinions you have probably heard generalizing the medical

condition of

> > children with autism and more importantly, your own wonderful,

special

> > child. As a researcher, I have personally analyzed the results

of

> > much of the epidemiology on both sides of the debate, including

> > importantly, the studies that the IOM states that do not support

> > causation between thimerosal exposure through vaccinations and

autism.

> > Curiously, each of these studies (in contrast to many of the

studies

> > supporting causation) is marked by the following characteristics:

> >

> > 1. Conflict of interest - from perhaps as benign as a position

of " we

> > need greater preponderance of vaccines and thus quell any

information

> > against them " to as gross and improper as study authors directly

tied

> > to millions of personal and research dollars to support studies

> > designed a priori to protect the use of any and all vaccinations.

> >

> > 2. Missing baseline data - these studies at best show previously

> > stratified and massaged data (e.g., Madsen et al. 2003

Pediatrics,

> > Verstraeten et al. 2003 Pediatrics, among others) as the basis of

> > their study. This is indeed a flawed method for statistical

analysis

> > as your original data must be in the most pristine state

possible.

> >

> > 3. Use of rather capricious data treatment methods - this

includes

> > the accounting for cohorts who could receive a diagnosis of

autism at

> > as young as 3 months of age, which all of us parents (and

> > pediatricians brave enough to be honest) know is preposterous

(see

> > direct quote from Dr. , University of Washington at

the

> > Feb. 9, 2004 IOM Meeting on thimerosal in vaccinations as well as

> > subsequent quotes by Dr. DeStefano admitting that cohorts

in the

> > Verstraeten et al. 2003 Pediatrics study were indeed too young to

> > receive an autism diagnosis - as reported by Neil Munro, Missing

the

> > Mercury Menace, National Journal, Jan. 3, 2004).

> >

> > 4. Faulty conclusions based on presented data and methods -

several

> > studies deny the plausibility of a connection between thimerosal

> > exposure and autism when there data support at best the fact

that a

> > connection based on their own study would be indeterminate at

best.

> > Fortunately, Dr. Verstraeten of GSK stepped forward in a

Letter

> > to the Editor of Pediatrics (Feb, 2004) and appropriately made

this

> > clarification concerning his previous study (Verstraeten et al.

2003,

> > Pediatrics) which was peddled at the Feb. 9, 2004 IOM meeting,

amidst

> > much confusion about the study's interpretation between

Verstraeten

> > co-authors, Dr. and Dr. DeStefano. Despite

his

> > involvement the cover-up of causation data which is directly the

> > responsibility of the CDC's National Immunization Program, I

consider

> > Dr. Verstraeten's Feb. 2004 Letter to the Editor, indeed a brave

and

> > appropriate action showing more duty to true science than facile

> > politics.

> >

> > What should our response be individually? Simple - Trust your

own

> > conclusions about your wonderful, special child. You are your

own

> > child's best expert, despite your educational background and

> > experience level. Get your child's lab results and go through

them

> > directly until you develop a solid understanding and conclusion

based

> > on your own analysis of what " experts " tell you! Unfortunately,

the

> > medical system in general with their intent for self-protection,

> > population-based rather than point-of-care practice and

attention to

> > liability shielding has created a most-likely unintended

attitude of

> > devaluing the parents' input in their own children's medical,

> > emotional, therapeutic and educational lives. I don't want to

judge

> > this as truly intentional, because honestly, within specific

> > instances, it is not mine to assess - it is yours as the parents

of

> > your own terrific kids. Unfortunately, this unintended attitude

has

> > created a " medical knowledge " class dynamic that at its core is

indeed

> > eugenics - caring for a population as a whole while ignoring and

> > devaluing subclasses that do not fall into this

inclusive " population

> > care " paradigm.

> >

> > However, that doesn't necessarily matter for your own beautiful

kids.

> > This is what matters: " This is the true joy in life, the being

used

> > for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a

> > force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of

ailments

> > and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself

to

> > making you happy. " Bernard Shaw.

> >

> > Be a force of nature for your amazing wonderful kids. It's the

best

> > choice ever for all of you hero parents! Trust your own

instincts and

> > conclusions!

> >

> > All my love!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E.

> > 509-366-2269

> > brian@d...

>

>

>