THE ONE THING TWO PARTIES CAN AGREE ON
By Jack Russell
Given that politicians are as hungry for votes as big pharma is for dollars I keep waiting for the day when either the Republicans or the Democrats seize hold of our issue and run with it. After all, we’re becoming not an insignificant portion of the electoral. As the stakes get higher and higher with each election cycle, I would expect someone to want to grab for our demographic and pick up some loyal voters. Sure, we’ve seen some courageous politicians put forth our issues and we’ve seen encouraging signs from the remaining candidates for president. But we have yet to see either party promote itself as the champion for vaccine safety and/or autism biomedical research.
Like many things, I’ve been continually shocked by this. However, upon further reflection about the nature of the two parties something occurred to me: The vaccination program might be the only thing on which they both could agree. It speaks to each of their core ideals perfectly.
For the Republicans the vaccination program represents a crowning glory of capitalism. It represents the ideal that individuals and corporations can, through their hard work, ingenuity and desire to make a profitable product, make the world a better place. Corporations can eradicate horrible diseases if the government stays out of their way and doesn’t impose too many regulations. For the Democrats the vaccination program represents the great good that can be accomplished through the implementation of a public policy. Through the establishment of a public health infrastructure and mandates they can touch lives of every child, regardless of socioeconomic status, and keep them safe from disease.
Seeing the issue of vaccines and autism in this light you can see why it is a tough pill to swallow for either party. The fact that vaccines could do harm offends the core values of each party. The Republicans let big business harm us. The Democrats tried to take care of all the children, but harmed them instead. Nobody wants to embrace that.
But, of course, there is one more factor, and maybe it is even more important. Both sides take money from big pharma. So, sadly, maybe this all just becomes a numbers game. At what point do the votes of effected parents (as well as grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, occupational therapist, etc.) offset the dollars brought into a campaign from big pharma? How many votes is a dollar of campaign funding worth? I don’t know what that numbers is, but it is real and probably being calculated by some staffer. I just hope too many more children aren’t harmed before we reach that tipping point.
Jack Russell is the father of 3 1/2 year old identical twins boys, both diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.
Deborah,
" 'Hillary Clinton has received almost $4.5 million in donations from the pharmaceutical industry..'
So again I ask how can we expect any of these idiots to care one wit about our families? The only way things will change is if the focus on corporate america is removed and we go back to simpler times when people CARED about each other."
What if some person or group (Jenny McC?) were to challenge ALL the candidates to give ALL the money they recieved from Pharma so far to ARI/DAN! (slap in the face of Pharma), and then have parents of ASD kids each donate $1 to the campaign? Naive, yes - but so far, the numbers only add up to $9.5 million.. Surely there are 9.5 million ASD parents who care spare a dollar - or about 2 million who care spare 5? True, Pharma could then up the ante and pour much more money than the "ASD parent" voting bloc could ever "make up" into the campaigns if they wanted to (I'm thinking to the tune of half a billion here). But if the candidates also pledged NOT to accept any more money - they could probably sew up the votes of the entire ASD voting block then and there.. And if they had already given the 2-5 million to ARI, it would make it I think (again, naively) morally difficult, even for a politician, to accept any more, knowing that if they did, the entire ASD voting block would NOT vote for them (I think they collectively have that much of a brain left..) And if they did pledge to give any more Pharma money back to ARI.. I'm not sure Pharma would want to take that chance (it would cut into their generic-Prozac/Risperdal/Ritalin/Geodon/yet-unnamed-glutamate-blocker pipeline)
As I said, this is all very naive probably. But really, what is the tipping point in all this? I thought that the Poling case would be a tipping point, and maybe in some ways it was. People on the EOHarm list are saying things are getting at least some media coverage now - the only thing I see much of is more scare-mongering about measles outbreaks and under-vaxed kids. But to be the thing that breaks the dam? No.
Will the next test case be it? Especially if that kid turns up with mito problems (surely they've checked..)? Knowing what happened last time, I think not.
Reading Evidence of Harm, I'm struck by the question of whether everyone involved back in 2000 though *that* would be time time when the lies would finally end. In 1999, ABA was finally accepted as a "real therapy", in 2000 we had the Congressional hearings and the grilling of people at the FDA and CDC in Congressional hotseats, and in 2001 thimerosal was supposedly removed from childhood vaccines (except for that pesky flu shot.. that strangely no kid seemed to need until about 2 years ago..)
Not it is 8 years after those events in Evidence of Harm, and it's like nothing has changed (keep in mind I only started reading about the autism/vaccine debate about 4 months ago). The "real" studies on chelation, and other things people back then called for haven't been done.
Will Jenny McC's rally be a tipping point? Maybe. The chances of it being so go up in my mind if there is an 'autism caucaus' in Congress who will stand with her - *at the risk of their jobs* (knowing Pharma will pour millions into their opponents campaigns if they do stand with her) and demand that things get answered.
- Jim
Posted by: Jim Witte | May 13, 2008 at 01:09 AM
"What do you think about the "green our vaccines" campaign by TACA and Jenny McCarthy?"
There was a discussion about this on the Environment of Harm list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EOHarm/messages/80033?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
Here are some excerpts:
"The autism-vaccine debacle is so enormous, diabolical and far-reaching that it's even occured to me that the war might be an inoculation for *it*. Usually homegrown scandals (Watergate, whatever) are allowed to press only because they distract and inoculate the public against interest in something worse, usually war atrocities, so this is also almost unprecedented."
"Isn't the concept GREEN OUR VACCINE the Trojan horse. Once you open the door everything will come out. They can't in truth defend any thing about the current situation with vaccines. Once we get the dialog going they will have no where to run. I think that is why they have been so uncooperative. Any move to make these people accountable to someone is good."
"[About chelation therapy] The response is forever the same "How did he get mercury and aluminum in his body?" Honestly, even his pediatrician (new one, not the one who poisoned him) said the SAME thing to me. I told him it was vaccinations. They all look at me like I have 10 heads. The more noise we make - the higher the visibility, parents will start paying attention and not just trust that pharmaceutical companies and the CDC who most think have our children's health as a priority. It's all about the money ... criminal. I use to trust and it made my son very sick. Children have never spoken over this, children have died from seizures ... the madness must stop. I wish I could be at the rally."
Posted by: Jim Witte | May 13, 2008 at 12:21 AM
"What do you think about the "green our vaccines" campaign by TACA and Jenny McCarthy?"
There was a discussion about this on the Environment of Harm list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EOHarm/messages/80033?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
Here are some excerpts:
"The autism-vaccine debacle is so enormous, diabolical and far-reaching that it's even occured to me that the war might be an inoculation for *it*. Usually homegrown scandals (Watergate, whatever) are allowed to press only because they distract and inoculate the public against interest in something worse, usually war atrocities, so this is also almost unprecedented."
"Isn't the concept GREEN OUR VACCINE the Trojan horse. Once you open the door everything will come out. They can't in truth defend any thing about the current situation with vaccines. Once we get the dialog going they will have no where to run. I think that is why they have been so uncooperative. Any move to make these people accountable to someone is good."
"[About chelation therapy] The response is forever the same "How did he get mercury and aluminum in his body?" Honestly, even his pediatrician (new one, not the one who poisoned him) said the SAME thing to me. I told him it was vaccinations. They all look at me like I have 10 heads. The more noise we make - the higher the visibility, parents will start paying attention and not just trust that pharmaceutical companies and the CDC who most think have our children's health as a priority. It's all about the money ... criminal. I use to trust and it made my son very sick. Children have never spoken over this, children have died from seizures ... the madness must stop. I wish I could be at the rally."
Posted by: Jim Witte | May 13, 2008 at 12:20 AM
From Lisa -
"If pharma/government DID "green" vaccines - would it improve trust between parents, big pharma, and politicians?"
First things first - let Big Pharma first MAKE a green vaccine, verified to be truly *green* by an independent party (I think we have earned that right now, knowing what they have done to our children!).
On the trust part - we will cross *that* bridge when we come to it.
Got to wait for that green vaccine thing first, we don't presume that its going to happen just because we asked for it ;)!
Posted by: OOOOH TRUST | May 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM
What do you think about the "green our vaccines" campaign by TACA and Jenny McCarthy? Would changing the vaccine "recipe" make as big a difference as is suggested? (I'm not 100% sure what the "green" recommendations are - or whether they are consistent with parents' concerns AND vaccine effectiveness?)
If pharma/government DID "green" vaccines - would it improve trust between parents, big pharma, and politicians?
Lisa (Autism.about.com)
Posted by: Lisa | May 11, 2008 at 08:52 AM
".. we go back to simpler times when people CARED about each other"
Hmm, perhaps some oxytocin nasal spray for the candidates (or all 535 members of the house and senate for that matter)? I seriously wonder - have oxytocin levels in the general population been declining as the century has gone on? And if so - could this be why we seem to have so many problems that essentially boil down to TRUST in one way or another (domestic violence, violence in general, road rage, shoot-ups-in-public-parks, etc..)?
The story several days ago about the use of framing and the language shaping this "war" discussed the work of George and Robin Lakoff. What was not mentioned was George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics", in which he hypothesizes that the two major US political thought-patterns, Liberal and Conservative (the current patterns, not the historical ideals of both) are metaphors for two different (and diametrically opposed) patterns of child-rearing behavior and family structure - "strict-father" and "nuturant parent". Read the book for more information.
Lakoff is a liberal, and he says in the Afterward of the book how after writing the book and exploring this idea of how and why political thought is shaped the way it is - he is even more scared of current conservative movement than he was before, because of what is metaphorically represents in terms of the family-structure model. This is a structure in which the father "runs" everything, kids are not trusted with their own ideas (thus conservatives distrust and non-funding of the arts in general, according to Lakoff), etc (read the book to find out more).
I would put it generally as the "every man is an island" philosophy (no "Great Society" here). By extension, a world in which every man MUST be an island because no-one else can be trusted.
How much might this actually be based on levels of a humble little nine amino-acid neuro-hormone in our brains?
- Jim
Posted by: Jim Witte | May 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM
"But we have yet to see either party promote itself as the champion for vaccine safety and/or autism biomedical research." And you never will as they are indebted to the drug cartels. Here's some info on money each candidate has received from the biggest enemy this nation has ever had. "Hillary Clinton has received almost $4.5 million in donations from the pharmaceutical industry; Barack Obama, almost $4 million; and John McCain almost $1.4 million."
So again I ask how can we expect any of these idiots to care one wit about our families? The only way things will change is if the focus on corporate america is removed and we go back to simpler times when people CARED about each other. America is heading to hell and I don't plan on staying for the trip. I hate this government/country and what it has become.
The only way to save this country now is to do a mass write in campaign and elect Ron Paul. That, or revolt as our founding fathers/mothers did against England.
Posted by: Deborah A Delp | May 10, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Sadly, yes, they do. Check out the income statement of top offender Merck (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MRK&annual). They made more than 24 BILLION DOLLARS in 2007, and FOUR BILLION DOLLARS came from the sales of vaccines (http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080228/mrk10-k.html). With ~280 million people in the US, Merck would only need to spend 1.4 billion dollars to buy those votes. When you see that Merck's marketing expenses are nearly 7.6 billion dollars, you realize that even the five-dollars-apiece vote-buying scheme fits into the company's balance sheet just fine.
When you look at what Big Pharma actually spends to buy the government's silence on drug toxicity and vaccine injuries (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=H04&cycle=2004), it is truly a pittance: less than 9 million dollars in the 2003-2004 election cycle. There is plenty of room for Big Pharma to step it up, which is why this battle will be so hard for us to win.
Posted by: Theresa | May 10, 2008 at 11:19 AM
'How many votes is a dollar of campaign funding worth?'
I remember hearing, back during the last presidential election, that there was an auction website where you could sell your vote to somebody else. And votes in Ohio were bringing around five and a half dollars. (The site was shut down as illegal eventually I think.)
I remember thinking to myself "five dollars?! sheesh what a pittance!" But it sounded to me like it could've plausibly been in the ball park.
You think pharma has five dollars for every man woman and child in the US, to put behind covering their A$$?
Posted by: Robin Nemeth | May 10, 2008 at 07:28 AM