UNDERSTANDING SEMMELWEIS

By Kent Heckenlively, Esq.

Atul Gawande is one of my favorite medical writers.  His two books, “Complications” and “Better – A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance” are practically unrivaled for their combination of compassion, style, and self-examination.

In the essay which opens his second book “Washing Hands” he recounts the story of the Viennese obstetrician Ignac Semmelweis who realized that the doctors who performed both autopsies and deliveries had a far higher rate of mothers dying from infections than did mothers who had their children delivered by midwives.

The maternal death rate at the time for doctors was about twenty-percent.  Of those delivering at home with a midwife, the death rate was about one percent.  Semmelweis concluded that it was the doctors themselves who were carriers of the disease, and had both the doctors and nurses on his ward scrub with a nail brush and chlorine.

The death rate on his ward soon fell to one percent.

Gawande notes the story has come down as an example of the “obstinacy and blindness” of the medical community, but he sees other factors at work.  Semmelweis viciously attacked doctors who didn’t follow his protocol, writing to one colleague, “I declare before God and the world that you are a murderer . . .”

When he lost one post because of his actions and went to another hospital he would “stand next to the sink and berate anyone who forgot to scrub his or her hands.”  Gawande believes Semmelweis was a genius, but also a lunatic.

In retrospect, it’s difficult to disagree with Semmelweis’ claim.  But people generally don’t like being called murderers.  It’s probably this same set-up at work in the lives of pediatricians who don’t like to look at the genesis of autism which resides in the very medicines they have spent so many years administering.

Twenty years later, Joseph Lister took up where Semmelweis left off and produced the kind of research which Semmelweis had refused to do and the world changed.  Hand-washing became the standard of care prior to child delivery.

I do understand the need to be like Lister instead of Semmelweis, but it’s often a great struggle.  I think of all those nineteenth-century mothers who left a child without a parent and I grieve for them.  I want to rage with Semmelweis at the foolishness of his time.

I remember a Star Trek episode in which the crew got swept into a violent, parallel universe, and their contemporaries in the violent, parallel universe got swept into their world.  The savages were easy to identify in the civilized world, but Captain Kirk and the crew were able to figure out how to live in the violent world.

So often I feel like the civilized in a savage world.  I need to act respectful to the community which has harmed my child.  It does not seem like sanity to me.  But it is the world.

Even Gawande, with all of his compassion and intelligence counts himself among those who cast doubt on what we have seen with our children.  I understand we need to present ourselves like Lister, and refrain from speaking to their faces the truth of the pain and struggle they have caused.

But in our hearts, my friends, I know we are with Semmelweis.

Kent Heckenlively is Legal Editor for Age of Autism.

Comments

[Claudine]

Every movement at first needs a Semmelweis. Thank god for these "perceived" lunatics...they make the world a better place...until the next human dilemna pops up....and the battle begins again.

[Sandy Gottstein]

I need to clarify something. The whole purpose behind Vaccination News is educational, a) so the public can more easily understand the vaccination issue in order to make informed vaccination decisions and b) in that understanding, perhaps decide to get involved in changing the laws that affect their ability to make those decisions, i.e., demand better information and the right to choose. In other words, the website promotes true informed choice.

[Sandy Gottstein]

Thanks, Hilary, for all you comments.

I appreciate you clarifying the info about Marge Grant. I'm reading her book right now and had not gotten to that point - was relying on my memory, such as it apparently is.

As for your question of Kent, ""Who do you want to get through to? The Government, or the people?", I give a resounding yes to "the people". That is the whole reason behind Vaccination News. That is why I spent so much time during this discussion asking how we get through to the people.

I, too, learned the hard way that it is pointless to try and educate people in the government about the facts, as they are known. When I tried to get a bill passed in Alaska in the early 90s that would merely attach vaccination records to the death certificates of children, I was portrayed as a lunatic. I even had the help of Drs. Archie Kalokerinos ("Every Second Child") and Arthur Zahalsky (an immunologist). I had to give up when the sponsor changed it to a constituent bill (no sponsor) as I knew the bill was now doomed.

But if the people educate themselves and as a result of their education, decide to protest, those in government who depend on being elected will be influenced. And since they are the ones who pass the laws, that is how change will occur.

And, had I had this educated, motivated constituency when I tried to pass a philsophical exemption bill and then the one attaching vaccination records to death certificates, the outcome would have been very different, I am certain.

[Hilary Butler]

How do you know that Atul hasn't re-written history to suit himself? He's done it in the past, by vastly inflating the statistics for deaths during childbirth in the USA.

Here is a letter I sent to Atul Gawande on the 5th July 2007:

Dear Dr Gawande,

Recently John Crace from the Guardian wrote an article called "You can't get it right every time".

Last weekend a New Zealand paper called the Sunday Star Times, reproduced this, word for word with the title of "Anatomy of Failure", in which you were quoted as saying:

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/wellbeing/story/0,,2100870,00.html

But Gawande believes there is a mismatch between the public's perception of what is possible and what actually is. "People don't truly understand the risks," he says. "Back in the 1960s, about one in 30 babies would die in childbirth; now we've got it down to less than one in 500 and people expect their baby to be born alive. When it isn't, they assume the doctor has messed up when he hasn't necessarily. That's why we have seen such an increase in caesarean sections: doctors just don't want to take the chance."

I would like to put it to you, that you didn't get it right this time. There is a considerable mismatch between what you believe in this instance and what the data shows.

CDC's statistics reveal that you have vastly overblown the risks when it comes to birth. A friend and myself went searching for the relevant data to match the bit above in red. I have attached for you, the relevant pdf, from which it would appear that you have used the figures for "infant mortality" which is ***all deaths under 1 year of age.****

The more relevant figure in the CDC pdf, is the column third from the left, and even that will include sepsis and NICU deaths, which I don't believe you can attribute directly to childbirth, so even that figure is slightly overblown. The other pdf puts the whole of the infant mortality issues into a slight different perspective.

I appreciate that you can't get it right every time, but for someone interested in convincing readers world wide of the rightness of his books, and therefore his data from which his reasoning stems, to me, basic stats on which a lot of other arguments might stem is very important.

I also wonder if you have read these articles, which you may find very interesting: From an internet search, I see Dr McKinlay now resides at New England Research Institute johnm@neri.org, and a discussion with him after you've read those articles and perhaps some of his more recent ones, might give you much thought and new material for an even more interesting sequel to your current book.

1: Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Summer;55(3):405-28, The questionable contribution of medical measures to the decline of mortality in the United States in the twentieth century.

: Int J Health Serv. 1989;19(2):181-208. Links
A review of the evidence concerning the impact of medical measures on recent mortality and morbidity in the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here was his reply:

~~~~~~~~

Thanks for making sure about the statistics I'm citing here. The CDC and WHO defines neonatal mortality as a mortality occuring in the first 28 days after birth. I haven't gone back through the fact checking of my book all over again, but we've confirmed several times that the following is correct in the statistics I cite for neonatal mortality: (1) in 1950, the rate was approximately one in 30. And (2) the rate for full terms infants is now less than one in 500.

In the book, I get these right. When I was quoted, however, I was indeed off a little. The year was 1950, not 1960 for the first stat; and the less than one in 500 is for full term infants.

Thanks for checking into this.

AG

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not long after that, a New Zealand Newspaper wrote a review with the same "mistakes" in it, so I wrote to Gawande again, and this time, he did not reply.

But here was my letter:

Dear Dr Gawande,

Thank you for your reply. You will be happy to know that I have just bought both your books, as medical people who are prepared to be honest, are a rare species, and I respect and admire anyone prepared to present an open face to the public.

Again, I would remind both of you, what John Crace reported you as saying:

But Gawande believes there is a mismatch between the public's perception of what is possible and what actually is. "People don't truly understand the risks," he says. "Back in the 1960s, about one in 30 babies would die in childbirth; now we've got it down to less than one in 500 and people expect their baby to be born alive. When it isn't, they assume the doctor has messed up when he hasn't necessarily. That's why we have seen such an increase in caesarean sections: doctors just don't want to take the chance."

I would like to suggest to you, that the use of CDC's total figures for infant mortality for 1950 are still not correct, for the following reasons:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1619337

Am J Public Health. 1980 January; 70(1): 15–21.
Neonatal mortality: an analysis of the recent improvement in the United States.
K S Lee, N Paneth, L M Gartner, M A Pearlman, and L Gruss

To test the hypothesis that the recent substantial decline in the United States neonatal mortality rate (20.0/1000 in 1950 to 11.6/1000 in 1975) is associated with improvements in perinatal medical care, we examined this change in relation to the two primary components which determine neonatal mortality: .....

You can download this article from pubmed...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

Yes there is a figure of 1 in 30 in Figure One, but that includes everything ***from start of pregnancy to one year of age.*** Can this be described as "during birth"? Table one above Figure one, is far more interesting, because it shows the percentage decline for all catagories in the various decades, which show that most decades from 1915 in USA, show equal progress, except the period between 1950 - 1970, when the least gains were made.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779935.html

This site has official CDC data broken down, and lists this as:

Infant Mortality Rates, 1950–2003
Year Deaths per 1,000 live births Fetal
mortality rate1 Late fetal
mortality rate2
Infant Neonatal Postneonatal
Under 28 days Under 7 days
All races
1950 3 29.2 20.5 17.8 8.7 18.4 14.9

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. From Health, United States, 2005.

Do you think the 29.2 Infant mortality , reflects how many babies died ***in child-birth?***

JR Paul wrote a book called "A History of Poliomyelitis" which I have. In it, he says on page 227:

"It used to be claimed, especially before the air age, that medical scientists in Australia and New Zealand, being remote from the mainstream of thought, were at a serious disadvantage in not knowing what was going on elsewhere."

In New Zealand, in 1950, Stillbirths (alive at 28 weeks pregnancy, dead at "issue" at whatever stage of pregnancy) were 17.35 per thousand, and neonatal deaths (up to 28 days after birth) are listed as 14.05 per thousand. The combination of the two is 31.4 per 1,000, which also cannot reflect the figure of babies "dying in childbirth". (Page 185 "Challenge for Health, A History of Public Health in New Zealand" Dr F. S. MacLean, 1964, New Zealand Government Printer.)

My analysis of the statistical situation you have described is either:

.... the statistics you have been provided with are vague in the extreme, or incorrect;

BUT ..... if I accept that in 1950, 1 in 30 babies died in childbirth in USA...

then in 1950, I'd rather have given birth in New Zealand.

Regards,

Hilary.

[Hilary Butler]

Marge Grant got the philosophical exemption in Wisconsin in 1977. she started speaking out in July 1975, 7 years before BLF, when watching a programme about Marge's son Scotty, had an epiphany that maybe her son Christian was as he was because of vaccines.

[Hilary Butler]

Here is another reason why i'd not take Atul Gawande's word for it.

The USA had a very intelligent, outspoken contemporary of Semmelweis(1818 - 1965).

His name was Oliver Wendell Holmes. He first wrote about the same thing publicly in 1843.

Did Atul Gawande mention him? I don't know, because I've not read his book.

Why not? He's a much more interesting read.

He did everything "right" and was still pilloried and slandered.

He remained calm, upright, and composed, and still was ignored.

I know. I have all his writings.

Atul Gawande cherrypicks who it is who suits his purposes. As far as I am concerned he is part of the "risk management" policy of the medical profession to lyull people into thinking that there are some people whose word you can vouch for.

The fact is your cant, and you should always do your own homework, and ask yourself the question, even about what I write... what is that person's real agenda?

and when it comes to anyone in the medical profession particularly "successful" writers in the system, you have to ask just who it is behind them.

I have a sneaky feeling that Gawande has someone else who does his research for him, who sketches out his outlines, and leaves Gawande to put the final titivations on it.

Why? Because you can't be an in demand surgeon, and do all the rest yourself, as well as "practice" medicine. It's humanly not possible.

Gawande is onto a very good thing and he knows it, and for that reason, while his books may be a good read, you take them at face value at your peril.

Same as everything else that has been written.

But if you want to know a real story, then go and research your own home grown hero about whom most people know nothing.

to repeat. His name was Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Start here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1843holmes-fever.html

In the meantime Kent, I think the reality is that it doesn't matter how you do it, you will never be listened to.

I started with that idealism in 1981. By 1999 I realised that all the government does with polite people is say "Thank goodness no-one else can hear them."

so the question you need to ask is "Who do you want to get through to? The Government, or the people?

[Denise Ferraro]

Twyla,

Thanks for responding to my post. I am sorry that your little boy was affected so early it is heartbreaking at any age. I understand what you are saying much better now. I am a bit sensitive when it comes to this topic because I've had to field some pretty ignorant comments about him from people over the years.

My son is also severly disabled, he attends a Developmental Learning Center and needs supervision 24-7, he doesn't speak at all and at 18 is still not potty trained. We have tried some biomed treatments which have helped him to be more comfortable and we are going to be starting some new ones soon. He is usually very happy when he is feeling well and his smile can light up any room. We all love him very much.

I agree,the future is a scary place but as you say we can only do our best to prepare and enjoy the present. I wish you and your family all the best in your quest to help your son. Hopefully someday all our children will receive the acknowlegement and justice they deserve from a society that would write them off as "colateral damage" in protecting the herd.

[Managing Editor/Kim]

That's enough of this comment trail, ladies. I suggest you re-read the comment guidelines.
KIM

[Kelli Ann Davis]

“It's not necessary to try to make this into something it isn't to end the discussion.”

biomedmama7:

The “discussion” ended for me when you made this statement:

“You do know what some of us have been through, right?”

Unlike you biomedmama7, most everyone here can check out who I am – I don’t use an alias – to verify that I have a son who has regressive autism.

That you would have the audacity to “question” whether I know “what you’re going through” speaks volumes about you and quite frankly, I have absolutely *no* respect or tolerance for parents like you who feel they are *justified* in issuing these statements simply because they disagree with another parent’s approach to this issue.

Kelli Ann Davis

[John Stone]

I think the issue hase been demonstrated by John Poling. He said that he did not believe parents until it happened to his daughter (and he himself mistook the propaganda for science to the extent of allowing Hannah to have nine vaccines in one go), but he is an honourable man and he has stuck his neck out when he could have had a much easier life saying nothing. Kent could not be more right, and neither could Sandy Gottstein.

It ought to astonish people how even today it is possible to mistake irrational belief systems for hard science, if those systems just happen to bear the name of science. But this is exactly what has happened.

[Twyla]

To Denise Ferraro -
You fell in love with a sociable communicative baby who lost those skills, became very ill, and underwent a change in personality after receiving vaccines. As a little baby, my son was sitting in his infant chair staring at his hands like someone on LSD. Was this because he received a Hepatitis B shot containing thimerosal on the day he was born, and more thimerosal at every "well baby" visit? We will never know for sure. But the baby I fell in love with was already showing signs of autism. I never knew him without autism.

Yet today at age 15 my son is very very happy, great company, and generally quite well behaved. He is way delayed on academic, life, and communication skills and we worry about this. But for now, we are very happy. Knock on wood he is in good health, not suffering. The good thing about a more severe level of disability is that he does not strive to be "normal" and is happy with who he is. He loves his family and his teachers and the kids in his special ed class and the people who work in the front office. He appreciates so many simple pleasures in life. He is gradually talking more and becoming easier to understand (maybe it's the zeolite). He still zones out a lot, yet he is gradually becoming more and more in touch.

What would he be like now without so many vaccines, without thimerosal in his vaccines? Would he and his sister have spend their childhoods playing together? Would he be able to speak in full sentences and play a musical instrument? What would he be like now without the biomedical treatments we have done, or if we had done more and better treatments starting at a younger age? I would need a time machine to know the answers to those questions.

What will his life be like after high school? What will his life be like after we are dead? These are scary questions, but all we can do is prepare as best we can, and enjoy the present. And we do very much enjoy the present.

That is why I say that if I had fallen in love with a typically developing baby who then radically changed after a set of vaccines, becoming ill and unhappy and unable to communicate, I would feel a much different sort of anger than what I feel now. But I do not mean to imply that everyone whose child has a genetic syndrome has the same experience as me, or that it somehow does not matter if a child with a genetic syndrome becomes autistic because of vaccines – that is not what I mean at all.

Note to Biomedmama7 -
I don't think anyone here is trying to shame you or make you do anything differently. People are simply discussing what they think are the most effective ways of communicating. What one person is comfortable with may not work for you -- we all come from different places emotionally, experientially, etc.

[DD]

Well, sorry but I can't respect any Dr that "doesn't get it or doesn't know better". I can barely keep my mouth quiet. No one can convince me that they don't know about the vaxes - criminy.... its basic high school chemistry/biology. 8 yrs of school & how long being an intern & they don't know. BS !!!!!!!!
Let's see, how do I respect some "Dr" that calls me a "bad mom", "they should call CPS on me for endangering my child", "we are acting immature" or here's my fav "..you should be arrested & thrown in jail for NOT vaxing"
Yeah, right, let's coddle the Drs & pharma companies . The Drs & big pharmas have had YEARS of "Lister". I'll take Semmelweis any day.

[Sandy Gottstein]

biomedmama7, Why you are making me into a bad guy, I have no idea.

FYI, while they may not have been warning specifically about mercury, there were plenty of people warning about vaccines and plenty of medical journal articles that raised worrisome questions. (Believe me, I read hundreds of them.)

Marge Grant, in I believe it was 1982, got philsophical exemptions passed in Wisconsin by bringing her wheel-chair bound 20+ year old Quadrigen-damaged son to the chambers. I learned about what she did in the mid-1980s. Her book is called "A Stolen Life".

Barbara Loe Fisher and others were speaking out by then. The book "DPT: A Shot in the Dark" was published in 1985.

Besides that book, here are some of the books I read in the early to late 1980's that convinced me to be concerned about vaccines:

"But doctor, about that shot....: The Risks of Immunizations and How to Avoid Them" by Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., edited by Vera Chatz, The People's Doctor Newsletter, 1988.

"Every Second Child" by Archie Kalokerinos, M.D. , Pivot Health Books, 1981.

"(The) Health of Nations: True Causes of Sickness and Well-being" by Leonard A. Sagan, M.D., Ph.D., Basic Books, Inc., 1987.

"Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth" by Walene James, Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc., 1988.

"Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions and Alternatives" by Leon Chaitow, The C.W. Daniel Company Limited, 1987.

I am sorry that you didn't know about this information. I'm not trying to make you feel bad about what you didn't know. The question in my mind is, once again, how to communicate this information to people in a way that gets them to listen?

[biomedmama7]

“Kelli, I have clearly said that some of us parents aren't able to be the diplomats and we shouldn't be shamed for our inability to do so. You do know what some of us have been through, right?”

Again, I’ve never said anyone should be “shamed” by choosing an approach that isn’t “diplomatic” – I’ve said that *all* of us are in different places and how we approach the issue is our own choice. I respect those decisions.

What I don’t respect is another parent trying to tell me that I *shouldn’t* use a diplomatic approach because they don’t agree with it and/or don’t think it will work.

Anyways, I don’t think it’s productive to *hash over* the same points. I’m going to continue to do what I feel I need to do and I'm sure you’ll do the same.

I'm going to leave it at that.

Kelli

Kelli, you aren't "hashing over the same points". You are quoting and "replying" to words and phrases that haven't even been said. It's not necessary to try to make this into something it isn't to end the discussion.

I truly believe we are all trying to end man-made autism with all that is in us.

[biomedmama7]

"biomedmama7, You said "Sandy, I don't know that you've missed anything but I get the impression you are trying to misrepresent what I have posted, and perhaps what you have posted? Thankfully we all have the posts to refer back to." Wow. Now you are accusing me of deliberately trying to misrepresent you and myself.

No use in saying anything else."

It's all here in black and white. Sadly.

[biomedmama7]

"biomedmama7, You said, "This makes no sense to me." I guess I wasn't clear. I'm trying to ask you why you didn't listen to the people who were warning about this before your child was injured. What would it have taken to get you to listen? If each person who has an injured child and knew that some were sounding the alarm, but didn't believe what was being said, can examine why they didn't respond, perhaps we can figure out what it would take to convince others."

Sandy, no one was warning about this in 1990 when my child received her first vaccine. If I had known mercury was in vaccines, I would have refused them. It's dangerous, according to my 8th grade science teacher, so it shouldn't be injected into humans or babies, right?

If I had known about the children regressing following the MMR, I would have refused it. But that wasn't public knowledge then, either.

[Kelli Ann Davis]

“Kelli, I have clearly said that some of us parents aren't able to be the diplomats and we shouldn't be shamed for our inability to do so. You do know what some of us have been through, right?”

Again, I’ve never said anyone should be “shamed” by choosing an approach that isn’t “diplomatic” – I’ve said that *all* of us are in different places and how we approach the issue is our own choice. I respect those decisions.

What I don’t respect is another parent trying to tell me that I *shouldn’t* use a diplomatic approach because they don’t agree with it and/or don’t think it will work.

Anyways, I don’t think it’s productive to *hash over* the same points. I’m going to continue to do what I feel I need to do and I'm sure you’ll do the same.

I'm going to leave it at that.

Kelli

[Sandy Gottstein]

biomedmama7, You said "Sandy, I don't know that you've missed anything but I get the impression you are trying to misrepresent what I have posted, and perhaps what you have posted? Thankfully we all have the posts to refer back to." Wow. Now you are accusing me of deliberately trying to misrepresent you and myself.

No use in saying anything else.

[biomedmama7]

Kelli, I have clearly said that some of us parents aren't able to be the diplomats and we shouldn't be shamed for our inability to do so. You do know what some of us have been through, right?

Sandy and Kelli, I don't recall anything close to the current level of dialogue until Jenny McCarthy came along with her own unique way of bringing it to the table.

Sandy, I don't know that you've missed anything but I get the impression you are trying to misrepresent what I have posted, and perhaps what you have posted? Thankfully we all have the posts to refer back to.

For my part in this, I apologize to anyone who has been bummed-out by this exchange.

I don't see diplomacy when children have been knowingly poisoned, continue to be poisoned, and the responsible parties refuse to acknowledge any of it or stop it, and instead they (and others) treat parents as if we have done something wrong or continue to do something wrong, or contribute to it continuing.

[Sandy Gottstein]

biomedmama7, You said, "This makes no sense to me." I guess I wasn't clear. I'm trying to ask you why you didn't listen to the people who were warning about this before your child was injured. What would it have taken to get you to listen? If each person who has an injured child and knew that some were sounding the alarm, but didn't believe what was being said, can examine why they didn't respond, perhaps we can figure out what it would take to convince others.

[Sandy Gottstein]

I don't know if this will clarify what I'm trying to say, but there is a difference between calling someone a liar and saying what the truth is. One is personal, the other deals with facts. The facts may be harsh and they may even need to be spoken harshly. I would submit, however, that in most cases, but not all, it is not necessary to get personal. I also believe that it is impossible to know what is in someone else's head, unless they tell you (and are even aware of what they think). So speculating about what a given person "knows", or what their motivation is, seems to be a dead-end, and may often be unfair. Of course, there are exceptions. For instance, some of the people who attended the Simpsonwood meeting come to mind. And those who were uncertain or even "knew", but chose to protect their own grandchildren while maintaining silence, or simply kept quiet, have more than a lot to answer to. And, of course, those in power or in a position of influence who cover-up the facts should be held fully accountable.

For instance, a parent might say that their child was poisoned. They might even say that someone should have known that this would happen. One might say that it was negligence to ignore what even common sense would tell anyone willing to pay attention. But to say that they knew and by so doing imply that a child was deliberately poisoned would in many cases be totally incorrect.

Again, how do we get those who disagree, but might be convinced, to listen?

Don't get mad, get even, strikes me as a good approach. But maybe I am wrong.

[biomedmama7]

"Let me ask you this, had those of us who have been trying to ring the alarm been calling the doctors names, and making all sorts of charges against them, do you think you would have listened to what we were saying? Is it because we didn't do that that you and most everyone else didn't listen to what we were saying? Or was it some other reason? It seems to me everyone needs to look deeply at what was the source of their own resistance and perhaps that will point us all in the direction that we should be going (or be continuing to go)."

This makes no sense to me. As soon as I got a computer in 2001, I learned what happened to my child. I felt defeated and helpless (chelation doctors wanting thousands upfront to treat my daughter) for years until Jenny McCarthy spoke up and we found doctors who were more interested in my daughter's health. I had no knowledge of you until Age of Autism.

I used to automatically respect all doctors. Now, doctors have to show me that they are worthy of us, our time, our respect, and our insurance compensation.

Things have changed so we've had to, too.

[Kelli Ann Davis]

Biomedmama7:

I never said you were the person who mentioned the “goofball” reference and I have no intention of running anyone off of Age of Autism.

And I’m certainly not heaping “angst” onto anyone.

Like I’ve said, you’re entitled to your opinion and if you personally don’t think “diplomacy” is going to work that’s fine. No one’s forcing you to go down that path.

Personally, I think it’s necessary and it’s how *I* choose to operate.

So we differ. That’s all.

Best,

Kelli

[Sandy Gottstein]

biomedmama7, There are some people who won't be convinced, no matter what you say. It is those who might be convinced that we need to figure out how to sway.

Also, who is shaming anyone? Or saying we should participate in the continued poisoning of our children? Maybe I missed something.

[biomedmama7]

Kelli, your "goofball" reference has nothing to do with me. My comments stand as there are. And I don't have to pick anything, thank you very much. I am the parent of a child severely damaged by vaccines. I have no respect for anyone who participated in damaging her or who won't acknowledge it, or anyone who thinks I should be nicer to those people for that matter. If people don't get it by now, they probably won't, regardless of my demeanor, which has gone from respectful, desperate and pleading to...something different when it continued after showing them my daughter's lab work. And that hasn't changed anything except for my role - which is no longer "victim".

Sandy, how well did your respectful and factual tone to Dr. N work? Was he swayed?

Some people need to be supervised by others who demand they wash their hands.

Diplomacy isn't going to sway these people away from their $90 billion dollar industry but parents trying to heep more angst on other parents will most certainly cost friendships and respect of other parents.

There may be parents who have support systems which afford them a little more pause, but for anyone to shame the other parents into doing something they are not equipped to do is just wrong. It is absurd to suggest we play any part in the continued poisoning of children, but I am certain the "other side" is delighted by that accusation within this group.

I certainly hope you ladies don't run me and other parents off of Age of Autism.