WHAT DISEASE DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILD TO GET?

By Julie Obradovic

In the aftermath of the Green the Vaccines Rally, the inevitable criticism of the participants and their purpose swooped in with the force of the thunderstorm that struck DC that afternoon.

In the recent years of being an “Autism activist”, I have found it much easier to simply steer clear of this criticism. Message boards, Bloggers and editorials that paint me as a fear-mongering fool who uses her child as an experiment only put me in a bad mood.

Initially I was compelled to argue, fighting for my dignity and looking for compassion. What I realized is that is exhaustive work, and frankly, quite fruitless, especially when the bully you’re battling is anonymous.

And so it has been that I have chosen to ignore the negativity and focus on the task at hand:  finding a way to help families with Autism improve the health and well-being of their children, themselves, and their finances.

None-the-less, occasionally it becomes necessary to stand up and be heard. It’s as if the opposition got a new memo on how to belittle one of “us”, and frankly, it’s annoying.

For starters, as JB Handley addressed in his essay “Moving the Goal Posts”, we are now guilty of “changing the game”. Evidently we can’t make up our minds about what part of the vaccine or vaccines cause Autism.

Is it the mercury? Is it the aluminum? Is it both? Is it too many vaccines in combination? Somehow our inability to stick to one story makes us inauthentic.

A second point accuses us of not recognizing our children had a vaccine reaction until someone or something (i.e., the internet) told us so. This too makes us less than credible.

Then there’s the third point that champions there is no science to support what we believe; that it’s been more than proven vaccines don’t cause Autism…yadda..yadda..yadda.

To be sure, these are not unreasonable positions for a person to have given the media coverage and the spin that takes place on an almost daily basis. But all of these points have clear answers:  It’s the amount of vaccines, their timing, and/or their ingredients in a susceptible child; when you’re told vaccines have no side effects, you don’t recognize them until later; yes, we use the computer to do research; and as for the science, well, there’s not enough time or space here to even go there.

None of these arguments get to me though, and none of them are the point of this article.

What does get to me is the new question I first heard posed by Dr. Harvey Karp on Larry King Live!, and have since heard from several others. It’s like a good put-down heard on the play ground one afternoon that becomes everyone’s favorite retaliatory remark by the next morning.

One particular journalist at the rally even got Jim Carrey to take the bait.

When questioning the amount of vaccines and their ingredients now given to children in light of a lack of safety studies, a new response is:

“Well, what disease DO you want your child to get (that we have a vaccine for)?”

Do me a favor. When you catch your breath from its insulting nature (for Christ’s sake, who WANTS their child to get a disease?), calmly remember this question is a trap. It’s meant to be inflammatory and make people concerned about vaccine safety look irresponsible. It’s juvenile at best.

The answer is simple and two-fold: None of them. None of us wish any child develop a vaccine preventable disease.

But the more important answer is that we don’t want them to develop a neurodevelopment delay EITHER. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

Unless and until we study vaccines for their long term consequences, particularly for their role in the development of chronic disease in susceptible populations, it is impossible to know the true risk-reward ratio.

Vaccines have been implicated in the development of speech delay and tics (among many other health outcomes), and are currently being studied for their role in the development of Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and other diseases.

It is not unreasonable for consumers of vaccines to demand the answer to the question:  In the name of the eradication of infectious disease, have we inadvertently swapped it for chronic disease. And if we have, what are the risks of developing both?

Hypothetically, if my child has a 1 in 5 million chance of ever getting Hepatitis B, but a 1 in 6 chance of developing a developmental delay because of the vaccine, I’ll take my chances with Hepatitis B. That is not the same as wanting the disease. That’s just plain logic.

So the next time someone asks this question, kindly respond, “Don’t you mean to ask me what disease am I least worried about my child contracting and why? Certainly you’re not implying I want my child to get a disease simply because I question the safety and unintended consequences of the mechanism that is supposed to be providing protection, are you?”

On a good note, resorting to this kind of ridiculous question reeks of desperation. And who can blame them?

Almost 20% of two year olds are now not following the recommended vaccine schedule.

The “Vaccine Court” just conceded a little girl’s Autism was aggravated by too many vaccines at once, and 5,000 more cases are in the pipeline.

Dr. Bernadine Healy acknowledged publicly (on the evening news, no less) that you can’t rule out a vaccine-autism connection.

Almost 9,000 people marched on Washington DC, and each one of them could have brought many more families with them. Thousands and thousands of parents are not giving up this fight, and if anything, are only growing stronger.

In Generation Rescue’s documentary “Autism Yesterday”, it was predicted things would only going to get uglier before they got better. I have to agree.

“What disease do I WANT my child to get?” you ask.

It doesn’t get much uglier than that.

Julie Obradovic is the mom of a recovered child. She is a member of NAA, a Rescue Angel, and a leader of the TACA Chicago Chapter.

Comments

[Twyla Ramos]

One more comment to Carrie -
I went to the "Science-Based Medicine" article "Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, and 'Green Our Vaccines': Anti-vaccine, not 'pro-safe vaccine'" to which you posted a link.

I could not find any useful scientific information in this article -- the author speaks mainly in generalities and slurs.

His main point seems to be that although we say we are for safer vaccines and that we are not "anti-vaccine", he thinks the "green our vaccines" motto is just a crafty subterfuge and that we are actually against vaccines. While there are some people who are against all vaccines, most of us believe that there is tremendous value in some vaccines, but that there are also risks that are not being adequately monitored and studied. He ridiculed people who want "100% safety". Most of us understand that 100% is not possible. But the increasing levels of autism, learning disabilities, allergies, asthma, and auto-immune disorders are not acceptable trade-offs for what were once common childhood diseases. Yes, we need to vaccinate for polio -- but HepB for all babies at birth? That's crazy!

What does this writer, Dr. David Gorski - aka "Orac" -- think is parents' motivation for (according to him) pretending to be for safer vaccines but actually being anti-vaccine? What could be our ulterior motive? What do parents get out of not vaccinating their babies, or vaccinating at a slower rate and not giving so many -- do we receive power, fame, fortune, some kind of thrill? He makes it sound like there is some hidden evil greedy motivation behind the "Green our Vaccines" movement. This is ridiculous.

He says that nobody is arguing against safer vaccines. This is not true. For example, someone is arguing for continuing to put thimerosal in flu shots instead of changing to individually packaged thimerosal-free flu shots. Someone is arguing in favor of continuing to export vaccines containing thimerosal. Otherwise, these practices would have changed.

Regarding "moving the goal posts", see J.B. Handley's excellent article at www.ageofautism.com/2008/06/goalposts.html. So many parents have seen their kids have adverse reactions to vaccines and then regress into autism. The 4900 parents filing claims against the fund that reimburses for vaccine injuries, and the thousands of parents who recently marched on Washington D.C., are just the tip of the iceburg. What parents have witnessed is evidence which should be investigated -- even Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the NIH stated this. But this evidence is cavalierly and summarily dismissed because, we are told, "the plural of anectdotes is not evidence" and "parents don't understand science". Yet, non-scientist parents are expected to state the exact mechanism by which vaccines can cause autism. Parents say, "I don't understand this, but this is what I witnessed," and people such as Orac think that their testimony is irrelevant unless they can state with certainty the exact science, involving biochemistry, neurology, toxicology, immunology...

I could go on & on, but I would just be repeating what I have said many times before in prior posts, and everyone would get very very bored. So I will just end with some links to further information. Dr. Gorski cavalierly dismisses all research with results he doesn't like, but there is important research on our side, for example in the books I have recommended to you in prior posts.

www.ageofautism.com/2008/06/sick-hamsters-m.html - a study of hamsters with & without vaccines done by scientists in Peru who apparently are not afraid to do the kind of study that our American govt agencies refuse to do

www.generationrescue.org

www.putchildrenfirst.org - Here and in the book Evidence of Harm, see how initial research indicated a link between thimerosal and autism, but was then massaged to the point where it is now used to justify the continuing use of thimerosal.

Carrie, what do you think of Dr. Gorski's article??

[Ginger Taylor]

Carrie,

On the Laidler piece. I first read this around 2004 after Chandler was diagnosed. Don't know how old it is.

Autism treatment has done amazingly well, especially considering that we have gotten no help from main stream medicine.

Freud recommended cocaine to his patients, but we don't throw out psychiatry because it didn't have the whole picture right out of the gate.

But note that his kids did get better while he was treating them. It may have been that he got them as far as biomed was going to get them. It may be that they were poor responders.

We have some kids who improve only a little bit, and some that improve dramatically. Some families try different things for months or years until they find the thing that works for their kid.

The field is evolving and we are learning as we go.

Wanna help us get it right?? ;)

On Dr. Laidler specifically, he wrote another piece on chelation that I responded to back in the day. I sent it to him and he said he would respond, but I never heard back from him:

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2005/07/file-under-things-that-call-for-cdc.html

In about 10 years we are going to be able to look at long term outcomes between people with autism whose parents did or did not implement biomedical treatment.

[Twyla]

Carrie –
In your prior post, you said “So the discussion , however ridiculous, is over.” I am glad that you are still discussing. Maybe you don’t find the discussion so ridiculous after all. I hope that this discussion is actually “productive” for both sides. For you, you may be learning about some perspectives on autism that you were not very familiar with, and resources for further info.

For us, I hope this is a reminder that it is not in anyone’s best interest to launch an attack on an inquisitive newcomer. Sometimes I wonder, is our primary purpose to “preach to the choir” – to communicate with those who already agree with us? Isn’t it even more important to communicate with those who are not already in our camp? If we did not have autistic kids, we might simply be lulled by the CDC’s mantra, generally repeated ad nauseum without question by the media: “Vaccines are safe; illnesses are dangerous; vaccines don’t cause autism; this is all proven beyond a doubt; parents don’t understand science…”

One never knows who one is communicating with on the internet – could be a deeply malevolent person, or could be a thoughtful person who is sincerely looking for answers. In either case, it seems worthwhile to simply express our views as articulately as we can, and if we don’t convince a particular poster, we may convince some later reader.

Regarding your last post, Carrie, you said, “We don't know anything for sure. And unfortunately, some things can't be proven. I am a person of science. I tend to stick with what I know and what has been proven by history, research and science.” We hear over and over again that vaccines have not been proven harmful. In some cases, the vaccine and the adverse effect are not clearly linked, but in other cases the link is clear. I understand the desire to wait for scientific confirmation, but the problem is that in the meantime more and more children are hurt, and the science is not being done because the powers-that-be are very reluctant to admit to a problem.

I forgot to mention one of the most important books on the subject – “Evidence of Harm” by David Kirby. If you have not already read it, I hope you will.

As you may be aware, Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote an article in Rolling Stone magazine regarding vaccines and autism (and yes I know that is not a scientific journal!) After his article was published, he reports that he received calls and emails and letters from around the world reporting the same stories – typically developing child receives vaccines, develops symptoms such as fever/arching back/screaming for hours/seizures – and then loses speech, social interaction, and other skills and is never the same again. He said something like, “These mothers know what happened.” Reports such as these come from times and places where/when these sorts of events were not being publicized, such as in the vaccine adverse events reporting system data from years ago.

It is terribly frustrating for parents to be told that the CDC and FDA believe in continuing business as usual because it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that some children have been harmed by vaccines. Dr. Paul Offit insists that theoretically kids could receive 1,000 vaccines at once without harm. Yet formal peer-reviewed studies have found increased risks of febrile seizures after the MMR and after the DPT, and even higher risk of febrile seizures after the Proquad vaccine which combines the MMR and varicela. Hannah Poling received many vaccines at once and then became autistic. If we learn nothing else from her story, should we not stop giving several vaccines at once? Yet the CDC continues, for example, to recommend giving the MMR and varicela vax at the same time.

Pet owners and veterinarians have been reporting the same medical conditions in over-vaccinated pets as parents report in autistic children – e.g. allergies, IBD, rash, seizures… Please see www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/veterinarian-wi.html

How many years must we wait for the proper research to be done? How many children will be injured in the meantime? Are vaccines held to the “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” standard? Isn't that burden of proof backwards? Shouldn't something such as thimerosal or aluminum be proven safe before injection into babies and children?

More & more vaccines are being added. Shouldn’t the cumulative effect of so many vaccines be studied? Why is there no study of health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids? The ideal prospective study cannot be done, but a retrospective study could be done. And more studies of animals could be done – comparing development with & without typical vaccines.

You mention that “any virus can hypothetically lead to encephalopathy”. I grew up at a time when everyone came down with chicken pox, measles, mumps, whooping cough, rubela, and the flu, and I do not know anyone who suffered any lasting after-effects. Yes, there are a small number of cases of measles going to the brain. And rubella can cause birth defects. But autism in those days was very very rare. The idea that these viruses would be causing autism if we were not vaccinating against them is totally hypothetical and not supported by history.

There is something special about how vaccines can provoke and even overwhelm the immune system. Injecting multiple viruses and other ingredients directly into the bloodstream is not the same as natural exposure via the lungs, skin, or digestive system.

Regarding Jenny’s finances, I can’t believe you are even bringing that up. Neither you nor I know anything about her or Jim Carrey’s finances. I do know that everyone needs to earn a living. Even if her boyfriend has money, a girl needs her own income, and an autistic son’s treatments come at a price. Jenny M. is spending a great deal of time as a mother and as a volunteer on autism causes. Whether she and/or Jim are donating money to autism organizations is unknown to me, and irrelevant to the question of whether vaccines can cause autism.

Again, I thank you very much for engaging in this conversation.

[enough already]

Alright Carrie,

If you are going to be part of the team of professional sketpics, just go on and hang out on those sites with Orac. He needs a girlfriend anyways.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=139

You say you have looked through the post on that site and it looks great. I will agree that some of the chemicals used in manufactuing the vaccines may not be in high concentrations in the final product, assuming their purification process is working well and is monitored often by an independant entity.

That is the only thing that guy has to say though. The rest is just opinion that all CDC studies are perfect, and mercury is safe, and anyone arguing that vaccines themselves might be dangerous is moving the goalposts. Is that what you think is agreeable also? So none of the toxicology research is compelling? None of the recent research on monkeys means anything? Hamsters, Nothing? Dr Healey's comments? No? Not a hint of curiosity as to why parents are fighting right now?

My question to you is: do you consider yourself a scientist or a practicioner of science? If you want to be a scientist, you had better have some level of curiosity. These guys who's blogs you are visiting are not going to help you out there, as they are more like worshippers of "SCIENCE", who never ever do any type of creative thinking. It's the reason they pillory someone like Linus Pauling, or any other real scientist who is actually in the business of making hypotheses, testing them, making new ones, and so on.

[doodle]

Carrie,

Anything with a "watch" attached to it like "autism-watch.org" is part of the quackwatch family, and is essentially a Pharma front that attacks anything considered alternative.

Their main source of income besides Pharma funds is acting as paid expert witnesses in litigation against any who dare oppose the monolithic mainstream.

BTW, they consider Linus Pauling a quack. You know, the father of modern chemistry.

That one particular link is to Jim Laidler, who has a long history with many folks here.

Basically, he switched sides. His reasoning was, from his website

"After years of “supplements,” restrictive diets and “unconventional” therapies (too many to list), our boys were improved, but were a long way from being cured. We were forced to carry their special foods with us whenever we left the house, lest a molecule of gluten or casein catapult them back to where we had begun. We were nearly broke, despite both of us having well-paying jobs, and we were on the verge of exhaustion. The beginning of the end was when my wife, suspecting that some of the “supplements” we were giving our older son weren’t having any effect, stopped them all—without telling me. I saw no difference, even after two months (when she finally told me). We had been chasing our tails, increasing this and decreasing that in response to every change in his behavior—and all the while his ups and downs had just been random fluctuation. My eyes began to open.

The final step in my awakening came during a Disneyland vacation. My younger son was still on a gluten- and casein-free diet, which we both swore had been a significant factor in his improvement. We had lugged at least 40 pounds of special food on the plane with us. In an unwatched moment, he snatched a waffle and ate it. We watched with horror and awaited the dramatic deterioration of his condition that the “experts” told us would inevitably occur. The results were astounding—absolutely nothing happened. I began to suspect that I had been very foolish.

In the following months, we stopped every treatment except speech and occupational therapy for both boys. They did not deteriorate and, in fact, continued to improve at the same rate as before—or faster. Our bank balance improved, and the circles under our eyes started to fade. And quite frankly, I began to get mad at myself for being so gullible and for misleading other parents of autistic children."

So whay Dr. Laidler did was a "challenge test", something that parents are encouraged to do all the time in the writings from the late Dr. Rimland. Just because his kids did not regress after the challenge does not mean that the diet did not work - it may have worked really well and they did not need it any more. His experience with a challenge test does not mirror my experience, and most others', but to him, that is irrelevant, and we are all either lying or stupid.

That is the quackwatch golden rule - all people except MDs are gullible fools who need to be led back to the altar of the gods.

[finally some honesty]

"Doctors aren't all knowing. They are specialists in one area. It is good for patients to know that and it's also good for doctors to know that about themselves. And to me, the ones who know when they are out of their league (the ones who know when to refer) are amongst the best ones."

Then they should not shoot off their mouths about autism to Big Media and their ilk since its obvious they know nothing about it. Not talking about you here, but the other all-knowing pediatricians out there and the medical *experts* who are clueless about the disorder.

[Carrie]

Josh, you don't need to apologize but thank you for doing so. Apology accepted. I can tell you feel badly about it and you are not a bad person for what you said. Ok? I also said things I regret. I think my pointing out my debt was not the best way to prove my intentions and I wouldn't repeat that, but it's done.

You actually wrote one of the statements I loved best "Do I know if a vaccine or booster dose brought on our conditions? No, I don't. Time-travel with thorough lab tests before and after the vaccinations aside, it's impossible to say, and even then nothing would be conclusive."

That is perfectly stated. We don't know anything for sure. And unfortunately, some things can't be proven. I am a person of science. I tend to stick with what I know and what has been proven by history, research and science. Having said that, I think your question to me is obvious. When you bring me your son, I would first make sure we are on the same page. I would make sure we both understand what are considered "typical" vaccine reactions (I am not comfortable with the word "normal") and what are not. We have to be in agreement on that. It's a whole discussion on its own. But because we are both adults who want what's best for your child and given your history, I see no problem in finding a solution that we can both agree on. So no, I wouldn't force the normal vaccination schedule on him. I understand your need for trying to do as much as you can to prevent harm to your child. That way, we can both sleep knowing we did everything we knew how to do. Does that answer your question?

Thomas, I completely forgot about Congenital Rubella. This is a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

Ginger , whoa, that's a lot to answer. For starters, I have seen your blog actually. Second, I don't know Jenny nor her son personally. I don't know about her mortgage and if this is the case with her, then I was mistaken. With that being said, you are right, she is not popular in the medical world. My "mommy instinct" tells me she's not as strapped for cash as she states. Her book was a bestseller. She makes more money in a year than most people do in a lifetime. Plus, she's with Jim Carrey. If she's struggling, how about him? He is now claiming to be the father Evan never had. Has he donated money to this cause? Just curious.

I will refer you to an article I read with regards to a few of the mistakes she has made. Since you asked. I found it last night. It is very detailed (more detailed than I can be right now) but I haven't found a mistake in it yet. Not to say they aren't there. Have you read it?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=139

It is a bit snarky but I think you guys are used to that by now.

What else? Oh, I absolutely LOVE this idea.

"Do what some smarts docs have done. Hire the smartest autism mom you can find to be your research assistant/ASD patient liaison. We live and breathe this stuff, USE US!!!!"

Thank you. I am not quite there yet in my career but I think that is a fantastic idea. One thing we lack in this field is time. This is a great solution though. Thanks again.

As for "Vaccine induced encephalopathy".
Well, I'm being honest here, ok? No, they don't teach that term to us. So I'm not familiar with it... What they do teach, though, is that any virus can hypothetically lead to encephalopathy. Seeing as how some vaccines (MMR, Chicken pox) are technically viruses, there is a chance they can lead to encephalopathy. A much smaller chance than getting the disease itself, but a chance none-the-less.

Back to Jenny and her son (and your blog post). I think one great misconception in the medical world is the definition of "autism" and "autism-like". To medicine, autism is not a regressive disorder. Children are born with it and they are usually diagnosed by the age of 3. The children who regress into autism-like features are in another category...So that's where I was coming from and most probably where your friends' pediatrician was coming from. I've learned it's really a semantics thing and something I don't know much about but I intend to change that.

Oh and one more thing. Kim, about the post about behavioral optometry. Here are my thoughts. I think a very big quality to have as a doc is to know when you're out of your league. What he could do for you is to test her sight. That's what he knows. Doctors aren't all knowing. They are specialists in one area. It is good for patients to know that and it's also good for doctors to know that about themselves. And to me, the ones who know when they are out of their league (the ones who know when to refer) are amongst the best ones. Does that make sense?

To give you a different point of view. I know NOTHING about acupuncture. A lot of people in the medical field don't believe in it. I'm not sure I do either. But what I do know, is that my mother swears by it. I know for a FACT that it doesn't do her any harm. She swears it cured her breast cancer. I think it may have been the chemo/radiation but I would never take that away from her. If the only thing acupuncture does is lift her spirits, then that is more important than any other treatment. So...can I give advice on acupuncture to my patients? No and I never will. But I can encourage. I can refer. An acupuncturist is not my enemy. He's not competition. There are too many things we don't know about the human body. Who am I to question it? So...that's how I feel about behavioral optometry. I hope that answered your question.

Okay, now my turn. Here is something else I read. Kim, can you give me your thoughts on this?

http://www.autism-watch.org/about/bio2.shtml

[Is the MMR given to moms safe?]

From Thomas -

"MMR prevents rubella which, in turn, prevents congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). CRS can cause very severe autism."

Or, if the MMR does not "take" properly, it can cause the mom to get excessive rubella titers prior to conception (say 3-4 years prior) which might be equivalent to "giving" a child CRS. How do you know that the MMR that was given to the mom was safe for her?

PS: Thomas, are you a pediatrician?

[Ginger Taylor]

Dr. Carrie,

I am really glad that you dove in. While arrogant know it all doctors really piss us off, we can recognize when one takes a posture of humility and really wants to understand this whole issue.

And when we meet them, we will walk a long way with them to help them learn all they can.

Going back to your original post:

"I will never understand why someone like Jenny Mcarthy has gained the kind of credibility she has...as a mother who claims her child to have autism, which I'm not even sure I believe. How does one know her child was even correctly diagnosed?"

Because her child lost his autism diagnosis, many docs don't want to believe, because it would make their claim that 'Autism is a mystery, no cause, no cure' fly out the window. And it would make them responsible for knowing potential causes and cures and educating their families on what they are, and, if not practicing them, at a minimum, referring to a doc who does offer them.

It would also mean indicting themselves is a horrible iatrogenic illness.

But unfortunately for those docs, Jenny's son was correctly diagnosed with autism.

A few months ago I was on the phone with a friend and she mentioned that her ped told her that Jenny's son was never autistic to begin with.

I blogged about it. http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-friends-pediatrician-jennys-son.html

Jenny contacted me, annoyed about the misinformation being offered on her son, and asked for the docs information in order to send her sons UCLA's evals to their office and request that they stop.

I contacted my girlfriend to get the specifics and it turned out to be the same practice that gave my own son the shots that pushed him over the edge into autism.

The same practice that I spent a year and a half trying to get them to look at the research that I was finding out about vaccines relationship to autism and trying to get them to look at the amazing progress he was making via the GFCF diet and chelation. I gave up after a year and a half.

So Jenny sent them the records and asked them to cut it out.

I don't think they ever responded to her.

If you are really earnestly interested in the details of Evan's case, she might share them with you directly.

But you should not be speculating about the facts of her son's condition with out at least trying to contact her first.

And not to be a Jenny apologist, but 'why didn't she donate the profits of the book to the cause?'

She wrote in the book that took out a mortgage on her house to pay for treatment. She was donating to the cause, her boy. She is one of us who mortgaged her future to get their child help quick (we sold our house and bought another at half the price).

As earlier stated, she has credibility with us because she is one of us and has the same story we do.

Because you had the balls to stick your two cents in here, you are now at a HUGE advantage over other peds. You can, at the outset of your practice, before you have thrown your lot in with docs who have uncritically swallowed what ever junk the AAP and CDC have churned out to cover up their previous bad decisions and have to spend the rest of their practice denying vaccine injuries to cover their asses, explore this issue and be very careful about it. You can learn a HUGE amount from these parents, because they can't go to cocktail parties any more so their Friday nights are spent at home reading research.

Do what some smarts docs have done. Hire the smartest autism mom you can find to be your research assistant/ASD patient liaison. We live and breathe this stuff, USE US!!!!

Come pick fights with us (figuratively of course) and see if we can beat you! If we can, then you have some work to do. Because you are SUPPOSED to know more about this than us.

Again... autism is 1 in 150 and growing at 10% to 17% per year. It is your responsibility to know it better than you know almost anything.

The first debate, that you started, was to say, that jenny was wrong about so many things. In our world, you don't get to just say that and then leave. You have to tell us what they are, prove her wrong and see if we can counter your arguments.

You know, an actual medical debate, like in the olden days.

Want to share with us where she was wrong?

One final question, and I know you said you would go, and may not want to get into an oldtimey debate, but please if you could answer this question it would really help.

What do you know about "Vaccine Induced Encephalopathy"? Has it been introduced to you in your education? Do you know the symptoms? Have you been taught to teach parents to look for it?

Do you realize that it sounds just like autism?

Or have you only been taught to screen for "autism" which is a mysterious disorder, no cause, no cure, blah, blah, blah.

I am trying to figure out what docs are being taught and how these vaccine injuries are getting by them.

If you don't want to throw yourself into another discussion, can you email me privately?

I am thrilled to hear that you have a healthy dose of mistrust for Pharma. Don't ever loose it.

For many of us, our kids are dealing with a life time of multiple illnesses, not because one evil doctor was out to hurt our kids, but because 100 mostly well meaning doctors fudged their ethics just a tiny bit.

When I looked at all the things that had to go wrong for my son to become autistic, I realized that, like football, autism is a game of inches.

All those small breaches in the ethics you and all docs have been taught will add up to horrible consequences for some of the most vulnerable that only would have stayed 'well' had everyone been a stickler for the rules, and like you, even refused pens.

I hope that you will allow me to offer you a small sample of how you might have already moved the 'autism ball' an inch by not sticking to good ethics in this discussion.

(Not bashing, just want to give you a concrete example of how this plays out every day in our world)

You should not have been speculating about the veracity of Ethan's autism diagnosis any more than my friends ped should have. You have not made any attempt to find out the facts, you have not read his records, you never examined him.

Some one hears you (or that ped) commenting on something you have no real knowledge of and thinks, 'docs are trust worthy and would not say that unless they had some good knowledge about it.... so year... jenny's son probably was never autistic so autism recovery isn't real, it is just a book selling tactic,' and doesn't investigate for themselves a treatment that could help their child.

Until a year later when they become really frustrated and another parent comes along and gives them the whole story.

The kids health improves, but he lost A WHOLE YEAR of treatment (which is a HUGE loss as the window for full recovery gets smaller as time passes).

My girlfriend has a boy with ADD. She asked her ped about the treatments Jenny did. Her ped talked out of her ass and gave her the WRONG information.

It was about six months until she mentioned it to me, told me her oldest had ADD (which she didn't know was an ASD, another failure of her ped) and the truth got straightened out and she made an appointment with a DAN doc.

Our children operate of a VERY thin margin of error. Medical ethics have been time tested and when people stick to them, errors get caught before patients are hurt, bad science and practices get thrown out more quickly and vulnerable people are protected.

Learn to love those rules. They will protect you from harming little, vulnerable babies.

I will end on a happy story.

My eldest son's godfather is a doctor named Joe Lienert. Joe is a well respected Navy Flight Surgeon who also occasionally oversees medical for the space shuttle launches.

Joe is also a rare find in medicine, a humble doctor who is always learning and respects ethical guidelines.

When Joe was in med school at USUHS, his wife Laura and I spent a lot of time hanging out because he was studying every night.

One day Laura called beaming with pride for her new husband and told me about his day.

Joe was on rounds and they had an elderly patient who had suffered a massive stroke. It was so severe that her brain stem had actually been pushed down into her neck. She was considered at the end and they were trying to just make her comfortable until she passed.

In the performance of his duties that day, he sat down to explained to his unconscious patient what was going on with her just as he would any other patient. Because it is the ethical duty of a doctor to let his patient know what is going on.

He held her hand and explained, and when he finished, she squeezed her hand.

He was surprised to say the least.

So he took a second look at her chart and realized that they were not giving her one drug that was a standard for stroke patients, and that she was not being properly hydrated.

So he walked down the hall to the supervising physician and his class mates and explained his experience and discovery, and they actually made fun of him for wanting to provide her with proper care.

But Joe is not one to be distracted by silly peer pressure. So he asked permission to augment her care, his teacher basically said, "All right Lienert, do whatever you want", and Joe gave her the meds and the fluids.

When Joe went into work the next morning, the woman was sitting up in bed and completely lucid! Talking to him like they just met on the street.

All because Joe took a moment to treat what everyone else considered a hopeless case with dignity, like he was taught.

Because he performed his ethical duties when there was plenty of reason to skip them that day.

If you think that vaccinating a child is safe, then before you do it, you must do your due diligence to make sure the guidance you are getting is correct. Read the studies for yourself, then visit us and see if we can pick them apart.

If we can't, then you can have better assurance that they are solid. If we can, then you should not be overstating the safety of vaccination by relying on studies that don't really support vaccine safety the way AAP et. al. claims they do.

Ask them HARD questions.

Thanks for listening and come back often.

[Thomas]

"Wouldn't it be ironic if we could prevent autism with a vaccination?"

Carrie, this is already the case. MMR prevents rubella which, in turn, prevents congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). CRS can cause very severe autism.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to attempt a discussion here.