Natural News on MMR

This is nice and clear: "What the CDC did, in essence, was recreate the original study design after it was discovered that the original one showed adverse effects associated with MMR." -0- "This is not just a health crisis, it's...

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Conversation with the Authors of Plague

Autism Public Service Announcement

Canary Party Vaccine Court Video

A Glimpse into Autism

Meet Our Advertisers


Olmsted's Original UPI Series

  • The Age of Autism Tag

« Dachel Media Update: A New Genetic Approach | Main | From the Bolen Report: Jake Crosby on Congressional Autism Hearings »

SATIRE: Who is Tough Tim Bolen and Why is He Threatening l'il ol' Age of Autism?

Yosemite samBy Dan Olmsted

There's a tough talkin gun totin fella outta the Wild West, Tim Bolen by name, who's a ridden in to Autismtown like a new sheriff and is here to tell ya, don't a be messin wif him and his posse cuz he's ornery as a stray cat that ain't a had nuffin ta eat in quite a spell.

Pardner.

Tim's been a takin out after the sarsaparilla-sippin rascals over at-a  Safeminds and a hookin up with a bunch of nouveau tough guys who think we all a been a bunch of pansy-asses in never sayin that there therisomil, or however you say it back east, is a causin this here autism, and that other shot too. (Even though Safminds done cooked up that therismole idea in the first darn place!) He's a got a new artical that already kinda got out the barn door on them twitters and facialbooks, but now he's gonna run it for real, like, even though some desperado named Orac already done had a field day with it. Now the rest of us cowhands can gather round the campfire and hear the tale.

Who talks like this? "As you know, it was I, Tim Bolen, who made the arrangements for an
alliance between the North American Health Freedom Movement and the Autism world by, first, arranging for a west coast conference for AutismOne in conjunction with my friends at the Health Freedom Expo at Long Beach, California." And on and on. And on.

And why not? It's time for Tim and his posse to be a callin the shots around here and takin over the town. Autism One? Pansies too. They'll be a run right outta that hoity Chicgao, or a workin for a differen sheriff, namely thisun, befur the sun a come up 365 more times in the West (namely, Orange County, home of fantasyland). Come on a Autism One, you be seein it!

Just a few sunrises ago, sheriff Bolen done took out after this here humble internets place called age of autism, and said, Pardner, I'd a be a careful if I was you. You better a think on whos a gonna be a butterin your skillet cornbread after we get a done with this here sissy factory. Don't a be asking any questions Tim and his posse might not be a likin about that there artical they might be a runnin and kinda already done did. Don't be a calling the pansy ass big shots and so called press spokesmens in Washington to be a tryin to get ackshul facts, that ain't a none of your job. You and your little pansy ass friends might a pushing up digital daisies by a time we a be a done with a you.

Here be somefin called a e-mail -- don't need no stamps! -- that Tough Tim done sent to this here blog warnin' us of more trouble than a porcupine wrestlin with a cactus.

Got it, Pardner.

--

 -----Original Message-----

From: Dan Olmsted [mailto:olmsted.dan@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 8:45 AM
To: tim bolen
Subject: Re: The SafeMinds issue - up to date
hi tim, thanks for these comments. just trying to understand on the question
of publishing jake's piece - you say "if i [tim] do do this," meaning publish his
piece, i think. but you HAVE published it, haven't you?
just trying to get my bearings here. if i write about it, it's correct to
say you published it, right? again, i don't have an issue with you
publishing it...
best,
dan
--
On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "tim bolen" <jurimed2@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dan:
No, that's not true.  I haven't published it.  Notice that it was
intentionally not dated.  I put it in a hidden place where certain key
people could see it to comment on it.  It was supposed to be private. ...
So far, I can't guess how many people have seen it, but if I do the teaser,
and hit the send key, roughly 285,000 subscribers will get it seconds later.
Then, it gets picked up by our network and rebroadcast to even much larger
readership.
Dan, were I you, I'd be very careful about what you do with this.  Rumor has
it that 50% of AoA's income is dependent on either Mark Blaxill or
SafeMinds.  Were I you, I wouldn't even touch this.  You might be just
betting the farm.  The last thing you want to be, right now, is a part of
the problem.  You were right not to touch it in the first place.
Perhaps this is a good time to wet your finger and see from which direction
the wind is blowing in the Autism world.
 
Tim Bolen
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John- I am sure that in the UK Parliament, comments such as those made by Congressman Posey would not be reported verbatim in Hansard!!

It might be of interest, then Member of Parliament Evan Harris abused parliamentary privilege during a debate on MMR Vaccinations and Autism, 15 Mar 2004. Glenda Jackson MP attempted to defend the Royal Free clinicians from Evan Harris's allegations of ethical misconduct.

Extracted from Hansard : Column 128
Evan Harris "Are there not grounds for considering a wider inquiry, because there may be another form of investigation—by the Crown Prosecution Service—for which the GMC would want to wait?"

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson) "However, notwithstanding the privileges that the House enjoys, it would not be appropriate for us to comment on something on which theoretically, if not practically, legal proceedings were still pending. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the ethics committees. I am sure that the Royal Free has listened carefully to what he said."

As we say in Scotland -That was him telt!!

Safeminds have denied having anything to do with preventing Brian Hooker's presentation to Congress. I happen to believe them. As stated on the Safeminds' defence against this allegation, on another part of AoA :-

"Brian spoke to us directly and expressed his concern that we maneuvered to block him from testifying, which we did not do."

Hi Jenny,

Just to point out that in what I am sure was a totally unprejudicial way Congressman Posey referred to Poul Thorsen at the hearing as "a humongous scumbag and one of the most wanted man on earth".

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/poul-thorsen-called-industry-scumbag-scientist-and-mercury-shill.html

I agree it couldn't happen in the UK Parliament.

John

..."Quite simply, any allegations involving possible illegal or criminal activity, MUST first be investigated by the police and if a crime is believed to have been committed, then the 'due process' of prosecution must happen in a proper court of law.."

Well, if this is the case, then I would imagine SOMEONE that had something to do with that hearing would have stated as such, prior to the hearing. You would think.

I'm not quite certain, however, that what you've stated is correct. I'll have to ask my attorney husband - he may or may not know (he's not a litigator), but I am assuming since Issa had initially agreed to chair this hearing and Dr. Hooker had been told he would be able to speak, that this issue with court justice and the Congress wasn't a substantial issue.

Further, my point with my rather verbose comment didn't so much have to do with whether or not this was a legal issue (involving Dr. Hooker's presentation), so much as WHY this lack of transparency regarding Hooker's presentation occurred in the first place. I can certainly understand Jake's anger as to what he has stated he's uncovered.

And again, EVEN if Dr. Hooker had been able to make his presentation, I have absolutely no confidence that those on the Hill would have undertaken any more effort to look into this, then they've already done. This is a monstrous cover-up and involves multiple layers of deceit. I don't trust politicians or our political process AT ALL, and with good reason.

Look - I am not the first person who has been an activist in this movement to have to deal with some rather unsavory threats because of my involvement. Every single one of my social media sites has been hacked. I have had trolls hack into my Yahoo! account, on numerous occasions. According to Dr. Palevsky, there have been outright threats made to individual physicians - some from other countries - who have been threatened should they dare to speak out about this issue.

My point in making the above statements is that YES, people need to WAKE UP and realize what we're dealing with here. Trust me when I say that even if some of those of whom sat on that hearing panel really give a rat's ass about this issue, they will most likely find themselves butting heads with more powerful folks then they and told to stand down.

Unless there is a massive movement - NUMBERS - of folks willing to gather together in one huge forum and really nail these guys, short of a million man march, I'm not really sure what's going to keep this train wreck from careening down into the abyss.

Our political process has been HIJACKED. It no longer TRULY works for the people. I've seen this time and time again right here in California. Ask Dr. O'Shea how HE felt after witnessing our lovely folks in Sacramento deal with our former Bill AB 2109. It was truly disgusting. Our political figures are BOUGHT and PAID for. PERIOD.

And they'd like nothing more than to see our group divided and conquered.

I've come late to vaccine campaigning, mostly the Wakefield et al MMR issues, which I 'took over' from my daughter and her husband in 2010. Before that, I did what every grandma does and supported our 'Wakefield Babe' and his family as much as I could. He is now 20 and a young man to be proud of. The 'autism' (which I prefer to call neurological damage), is less of a problem than his gut issues, which cause him constant pain and discomfort, but he seldom complains.

I am not campaigning to help my grandson, but to bring about changes in vaccine policies in order to prevent damage to future generations. In what is left of my lifetime, I also want to see justice for Dr Wakefield and his Royal Free colleagues, all of whom helped my grandson, but justice must be SEEN to be done publicly and there's the REAL problem.

Bayareamom asks this question:-

"Do any of you REALLY feel that those political figures up on that Hill are really going to DO something about this? We've already seen how many hearings on this vaccine issue; not much has happened IN OUR FAVOR. Things need to be said; they needed to be said up on that panel, but they weren't. Why is that?"

Let's be quite certain about how changes happen. In a so called 'democratic' society, we elect those politicians whom we hope will deliver the policies we want. Once elected, the 'party' in power will appoint persons to oversee and implement health and other policies. These policies include immunisation and the issues associated with this, including vaccine safety. In the US the main government agency concerned with immunisation is the CDC.

As I understand it Dr Hooker has used Freedom of Information laws to uncover some very murky 'goings on' inside the CDC with regard to Thiomersal in vaccines. Some of these revelations could potentially involve criminality within the CDC. Poul Thorsen has already been indicted for fraud and money laudering in the US, but Dr Hooker plainly believes other CDC personnel may well be involved.

WAKE UP FOLKS!! Dr Hooker's 'evidence' NEVER had a chance of being 'aired' at a Congress meeting. Quite simply, any allegations involving possible illegal or criminal activity, MUST first be investigated by the police and if a crime is believed to have been committed, then the 'due process' of prosecution must happen in a proper court of law. Congress cannot decide these issues, and if Dr Hooker's evidence had been heard at that Congress meeting, then this would have 'prejudiced' any future court proceedings. This is almost certainly the main reason why Dr Hooker's evidence was not permitted at that Congess meeting. However, the Thorsen issues, (already in the public domain), got a good public hearing. Whether or not Congress actually DOES anything positive, is up to them, We can only hope, but at least some of them have now been informed, and publicly. They cannot now use 'ignorance' as an excuse to do nothing.

From my side of the Atlantic Ocean, the Age of Autism internet site is a 'Godsend', lots of informed diverse articles and opinions and plenty of expertise and technical knowledge. We have nothing like this in the UK, where government agencies do everything in their power to 'stamp on' any public resistance movement. I am distressed to observe a 'falling out' amongst persons I admire, and who have worked tirelessly for the sake of our children and future generations.

It's Valentine's Day tomorrow. I love you all!!
Jenny


I'll go ahead and delve into this topic a little more. First, I hope that everyone involved has taken a deep breath and hopefully ponder what's NOT been said here. I've not seen anyone refute what Jake states in his piece. I've read the entirety of that article - twice. From what I have gleaned in most, if not all, of Jake's articles, is his tendency to call a spade a shovel.

I LIKE that about Jake; he calls it the way he sees it.

Jake admits right in his article that he thought long and hard about printing some of those snippets of emails, but ultimately decided that he had to speak out and in doing so, I think Jake very well realized he would get a degree of flak because of it. Not surprisingly, he has.

What I am most curious about is whether what Jake states happened - actually happened. In reviewing his article, it seems clear that Dr. Hooker did NOT refute what Jake stated.

That bothers me.

It just seems to me that the lack of transparency as to what happened behind the scenes PRIOR to that hearing should bother EVERYONE involved in this battle. Isn't this what we are saying the big pharma boys are lacking - transparency? Transparency behind the so-called research is lacking; transparency behind the real agenda behind vaccination, seems lacking; TRUTH in this entire program...seems lacking.

TRUTH. That word can take on a whole new meaning and carry with it a lot of weight - both good and bad. But that's what we're striving for with this battle, is it not?

So it does seem to me that Jake spoke the Truth, unless someone can put forth reasons why I or any of the rest of us, shouldn't believe what Jake has written. But I've never, ever thought that Jake wasn't a truth teller. Quite the contrary; he seems to me to be a conscience driven person who strives to get the truth out there, come hell or high water.

Politics is never usually about the truth - that's why it's politics. I think it's time to yank those strings as someone says and realize that unless the hardcore truth is told out there and said loudly and forcefully enough, this mountain of a battle is going nowhere.

I read Dr. Hookers' statement - in full. I liked it and I wish wholeheartedly that he had been able to read the damn thing in that hearing. IF what Jake says is true, then perhaps SafeMinds didn't truly have too much to do with this last decision of Issa's to hold this hearing; that hearing emanated from various discussions that Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Hooker and others held with Issa and other political figures. From what I read as to the timeline with all of this, Dr. Hooker had, indeed, been promised a spot on that panel. And by all means, he should have been allowed to speak.

To be clear, it also seems to me that there are those in this camp that seem to feel that mercury is the SOLE reason behind this vaccine damage epidemic. It isn't. As Dr. Russell Blaylock has so eloquently spoken on numerous occasions, it's NOT just the mercury that's at issue here.

But the mercury issue can be a START - a focus - for those that have had very little education with this entire vaccine/autism quagmire.

I'm all for speaking the truth and be damned where the chips may fall. Jake's piece was a stinging rebuke to those that participated in behind-the-scenes efforts with this hearing.

I wasn't there, obviously, but I would actually like to hear from someone whether or not what Jake had to say, is factual. If not, how about presenting to us what exactly DID happen and what, if anything, this hearing actually ACCOMPLISHED (besides ruffling a whole lot of feathers).

The last time I spoke with Tim Bolen on the phone (months ago one Sunday morning), he was on OUR SIDE. Not against - ON. But Bolen calls a spade a spade as well, that's just the way he is.

So do any of you folks feel we can skate along for another twenty years before another hearing? Do any of you REALLY feel that those political figures up on that Hill are really going to DO something about this? We've already seen how many hearings on this vaccine issue; not much has happened IN OUR FAVOR.

Things need to be said; they needed to be said up on that panel, but they weren't. Why is that?

Sorry, Charlie... (Hoover, that is.)

Consumer Reports just published "10 bad reasons for skipping the flu shot this year." CR never met a vaccine they didn't like.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2013/01/10-bad-reasons-for-skipping-the-flu-shot-this-year/index.htm

Realistically, I don't think anyone is getting rich writing for AoA. FWIW, I've never received a cent. There is much to this Safeminds/Crosby/Bolen debacle that readers may never know. What's important is to ask who profits, and then move on.

In times of crisis people are tempted to bend the rules of civil society. In this case it's Fair Use doctrines and SPJ confidentiality guidelines. Ironically, the root of all this involves revealing CDC emails obtained via FOIA.

What's important is that individuals never abrogate personal responsibility for making the change they wish to see in the world. Call your legislators! Write your local newspapers! Talk to relatives, neighbors, fellow parishioners. Don't dilly-dally like the Israelites waiting for Moses to come down from the mountaintop. Do it yourself.

As per Tim Bolen, consider the fable of the scorpion and the frog. We should not be surprised when creatures act on their nature.

Jenny,

I cannot help it if I have this nagging feeling of “WTH is going on”? Has AoA morphed into something more than just a voluntary entity and lost its independence? Was it really independent of editorial control from outside influences from the start? Is it now a business where management places greater emphasis on the business’ success rather than on allowing trusted contributing editors to publish articles freely without heavy handed editorial control? I don’t know. I do know though that funding transparency is important as one can better ascertain the weight one should apply regarding the ‘truthfulness” of promulgated content. If I read how fantastic the 2013 Camaro is in Motor Trend Magazine, I give it little weight as this magazine accepts advertisement dollars from GM. On the other hand, if Consumer Reports Magazine states the 2013 Camaro is fantastic, I give this great weight as Consumer Reports does not accept advertisements at all. If I read in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics how fantastic vaccines are, I give it very little weight because drug companies donate millions to them. What weight do I now give for AoA content when I am unsure who is providing funding? Are there personal donors with an agenda contributing significant money that you and I are not aware of? As I said, if AoA is not a “voluntary” not for profit “Daily Web Newspaper” they should be transparent who is indeed "butterin their skillet cornbread" so subscribers can make objective decisions regarding the truthfulness of the promulgated content.

BTW, I cut the strings twelve years ago and quit blindly trusting ANYONE because of the damage caused by ‘safe” mercury laden vaccines.

OK, writing satire isn't quite the same as running around on red stilts, but still...

The King's Stilts
http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Stilts-Classic-Seuss/dp/0394800826

Taximom, the satire is aimed more at Tim Bolen than Jake. Tim seemed to think that by threatening to publish the article to a larger audience he could control Dan's actions. That's what inspired Dan's ridicule. Speaking as a subjective observer, to me it's not "downright nasty". It's humorous and makes a point. I think it would be a shame for anyone to act like a grownup at all times. Once in a while we all need a break.

Okay, I've taken a day to try to digest things, and learn what I could about the situation.

I think that this particular post "Satire: Who is Tough Tim Bolen" should be deleted. Entirely.

Dan Olmsted, if you have a point or complaint to make, I suggest you make it, simply and directly. This unnecessarily theatrical "satire" you've posted is difficult to read, even more difficult to understand, and, when one gets through translating it, it alternately makes it look like you are whining, or like you are attacking colleagues in a particularly nasty and underhanded manner.

Rather than make any of us laugh (which is what satire is supposed to do), you have horrified most of us, even those who might have been inclined to agree with you.

I can understand Jake's point of view. I'm not sure I agree with how he's handled everything, but I'm not sure I DISagree, either, and I certainly understand where he's coming from.

But no matter how frustrated you might be at the situation, I can't even begin to understand why you've decided to become downright nasty in how you've handled things.

What is your excuse for YOUR behavior? Sorry, frustration is not an excuse. And no,you can't say, "he made me do it."

You're a grown-up.

Act like one. AT ALL TIMES.

If someone on your team makes what you consider to be a serious tactical error, DEAL WITH IT. LIKE A GROWNUP. A nasty satirical whiny complainy post is not a mature, intelligent way to deal with anything. Did you actually think it was? DO YOU THINK IT'S OK TO BEHAVE THAT WAY? (No. It's not okay. It's not okay anywhere. Certainly not here.)

Perhaps you don't realize that you are fracturing our community--which is already under fire from all sides?

Wake up, then, and realize it.

No excuses.

Charlie Hoover:
You're comment is confusing to me. There is a list of sponsers to the right of theAofA home page. I'm pretty sure it's always been there, with Safeminds on the list. Not exactly hidden from anyone. As a reader, I consider that disclosure. Considering Mark Blaxill is part of AofA, and also part of Safeminds, and also part of Canary Party, and none of that is a secret to anyone, I'd find it more surprising if Safeminds DIDN'T contribute.

"Hidden," according to most folks I know, would mean hiding from sight. In some cases it's really easy to find something "hidden" almost to the point where one might question whether the person in charge of "hiding" something was really trying to "hide" something at all, or just pretending to "hide" something, like when you play a game with your kids and pretend to hide something, but you know you've made it easy enough for even a 2 year old find. Search buttons on blog sites are like that. You can say it's hidden, but all one has to do is enter a name, and lo & behold everything that person wrote on a blog is there for everyone and anyone to see, i.e., NOT really hidden.

If I stop and let my imagination run wild, I can just picture a coniving puppet master, evil grin on his face, somewhere whispering half-truths into vulnerable wooden ears, massaging half-truths until into well-crafted disinformation to be passed along by an innocent messenger. With any luck, thinks the puppeteer, and just the right tilt of the hand, he could have about 7 different autism/health freedom advocacy organizations tapping faster than fast, too busy pointing fingers at each other to notice what's going on behind the curtains on the main stage. Cue evil laughter fading into background . . .

I hope everyone affected will stop & look up, take their scissors out & cut the strings.


@Donna L. I imagine that I am one who may be described as being harsh with Jake (ie raking Jake over the coals), and I appreciate the fact that some may bristle over the harshness of some comments here in regards to that. Having said that, I think that it is important for some of these "unwritten social rules" to be pointed out and/or communicated to Jake. When he is in the working world, how do you think it will go over if he were to do this to a boss or coworkers? Trust is very fragile... I do hope that Jake has learned from this experience. Again, for the record... He very well may have valid points and concerns about what happened here but his approach was misguided, imo.

I was under the impression Age of Autism operated at the good grace of volunteers (thank you Kim, Dan, and everyone!) and any funding received (reader donations or from advertisers) essentially paid administration costs to keep the web site up and running. Should this not be the case, Age of Autism should reveal where all their funding originates from. After all, our community has demanded agencies such as ECBT be transparent regarding their sources of funding and should we not practice what we demand of others? Transparency is a good thing and prevents situations like this.

Regardless of which side we may take on this issue, it seems to me there are some unwritten social rules involved here that may seem glaringly obvious to many of us, but might very well be overlooked or go unnoticed by a person on the spectrum. This business of raking Jake over the coals seems horribly wrong to me. Just my two cents.

Mr. Kasemodel,

I see you've conceded that there are circumstances for revealing private e-mails.

What a strange interpretation of John 8:7 - "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, don't say anything at all." (That's actually a quote by Thumper from the movie Bambi.) In real life, not good things have to be said about people from time to time, or the world would be run by Nazis and other not very good people.

You speculate about bias without acknowledging the obvious bias of the editor of Age of Autism in favor of its sponsors and its Editor At Large who are under criticism.

Why would you consider the 12 of us who commented anonymously on this article to be insecure in our beliefs? A larger clue about beliefs and bias is the fact that you said you're from St. Paul, where Mark Blaxill's Canary Party has held its national conference for the past two years and where the President of the Canary Party lives. You're probably all good friends.


What a frustrating situation.

First of all, Jake, you have just shown yourself to be unworthy of trust. It brings me no satisfaction in saying that (as I have enjoyed some of your previous work), but it is how I feel. To be so bold as to publish emails without consent from those who trusted you as a valuable member of their "group" is horrible. You absolutely crossed the line. For anyone to attempt to use Dan's published personal emails between Tim Bolen and himself as a comparison ie: "Well Dan did it too... how hypocritical" is asinine! Can you honestly not see the difference here? Obviously, Dan would not have done that had Jake / Tim not completely broken all trust between all individuals involved in this mess. Take responsibility Jake. If I were to explain how I see this, it would be as if one of my children had a major temper tantrum and instead of sitting me down and discussing it, they took to FB to yell and whine about how awful, unfair and mean I am. I'm sure Jake will not like the fact that I am comparing him to one of my "children" but it was as close a comparison as I could come up with as to how this appears to me...

I also see as I read your "article" that there did seem to be some reaching out at the end to Dr. Brian Hooker. (Clearly not as much as you would have liked, and perhaps you are correct that it wasn't enough... I simply don't know)... However, there was a reaching out that went on by your own admission. You (and/or Brian Hooker) very likely had some very valid points. In fact, I would bet on it. I wish that you could have expressed these grievances differently. Heck, I likely would have listened and agreed with you on many points. Unfortunately, you blew it for me.

I reserve the right to come back here with a different view / opinion if / when I get more information where a breach of trust like this was necessary. So far, I haven't seen it.

WWJD,

My invoking of the new testament was to remind everyone here that the old saying "if you don't have anything good to say about someone, don't say it at all" is a motto only Mother Theresa could say she follows with complete honesty.

As far as the claim that SafeMinds "behaved immorally and unethically", I am withholding judgement. I am not going to jump to the conclusion of guilty based on Jake's "journalism" - full of bias and unsubstantiated claims. Jake seems to believe that SafeMinds a lot of control over the members of the Committee and who they chose to let speak. We all need to remember that CDC and Pharma has the ear of the Committee as well and probably had more to do with who the witnesses were than anything SafeMinds had to say.

It was NOT obvious to me that there were no other alternatives for communication than a public airing of the disagreements. Interesting thing about most disifectants - they tend to leave undesirable residues and smells.

Regarding Dr. Hooker I feel that his testimony would have been awesome and would have fostered a lot of questions from the members of the committee. I have corresponded with Brian in the past and have the utmost respect for him. I do not however believe that the committee staff who planned out this Hearing ever intended to limit the discussion to the topic of CDC cover-up. I am not going to try to guess how Dr Hooker feels about Jake's article. When he comments then we will know. We only have Jake's cut and pastes to make a judgement.

Regarding my point about private e-mails, go ahead and call it hypocrisy. I see it different - that Dan posted Tim Bolen's response to show the reader that Bolen was using Jakes article as a veiled threat to Dan and AoA. None of the people quoted in Jake' article were saying things like "I'd be very careful about what you do with this" or "Were I you, I wouldn't even touch this. You might be just betting the farm."

For me this is not about choosing sides, it is about moving ahead. I suspect in a few weeks we might have more information to work on forming our opinions of the individuals involved. I am also secure enough in my beliefs that I can attach my real name to my comments.

Mr. Kasemodel,

You invoke Jesus while defending an organization that behaved immorally and unethically, resulting in our voice being weakened, not strengthened, in Washington.

If you read the entire article as you claim you did, wasn't it obvious that there was no other alternative than to deal with the problem publicly? Private attempts utterly failed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

To chastise Jake for revealing private e-mails of people who are compromising our cause while giving Dan a pass who revealed a private e-mail in this very post is the height of hypocrisy.

Perhaps Dr. Hooker, an autism father and PhD scientist who is dedicated to our cause, has a different take on "betrayal of trust" than you do.

For those of you who did not read Jake's "article" prior to reading Dan's post above, or have not read it at all I can say I agree with Dan's approach - it certainly has fostered public discussion. Tim Bolen apparently picked and chose which individuals he wanted to get comments from which may have influenced the tone of the replies as they were private versus public. I believe it is a matter of semantics for Bolen to say e-mailing to undisclosed participants is not "publication".

I read the article ahead of this post. I believe that Tim Bolen and Jake Crosby both stepped over the line. Jake made public very private e-mails in which he was included in confidence. Tim Bolen seems to think that his and Jake's version of events warranted the breach of respect to which Jake was given by the participants of e-mail chains and personal discussions he was involved with. These were private conversations should have been kept private. For those who might judge the prudence of any one individual involved, remember what Jesus said - "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"

Personally I am disgusted not at the content of the dialogue by those involved but level of betrayal to the trust of others by Jake. My take is that while he and others were extremely disappointed about the way the Congressional Hearing turned out, their disappointment likely clouded their ability to take in the whole picture of exactly how Washington works. Believe me, it is not a lot different St Paul either.

Wven without taking sides I can say the grievances aired in Jake's "article" would have best been dealt with in a manner that was less public. I for one am very disappointed in Jake Crosby and Tim Bolen for the way they handled this.

OIAQ, yes lilady has libelled others and accused others of cyber-stalking. If as she claims, she is the parent of a child who died from a rare genetic disorder she is certainly bitter over that, contrary to what she says. Maybe she even has doubts as to the "geneticness" of her child's illness. Nobody hates to that degree and is so rabid in their ugly activity unless there is a reason. My sympathies to the husband as well.

"Oracisaquack, I believe lilady is pathologically ill."

That would imply an excuse for her disgusting behaviour.

She's also fond of accusing others of libel, is she not?

She claims to be a parent...it must be nightmarish to be married to that woman. Her husband has my deepest and most sincere sympathies.

(Yes, lilady...I am indeed trashing you)

Oracisaquack, I believe lilady is pathologically ill. She definitely cyberbullies at the least and engages in a lot of tracking behaviour (re-posting). All this behind her cloak of anonymity. She definitely makes threats to people's jobs and has definitely engaged in cyber-stalking of Jake. Someone has mentioned that even one of her fellow bloggers has called her on it.

Jake's piece didn't meet AoA's journalistic standards says Dan because Jake included private emails in his article....but Dan did exactly the same thing in this "satirical" piece. That's the only funny thing about this article.

This kind of "infighting" is exactly how good causes get corrupted and fail. As a mother who relies on all of you for support, please please please get your shit together.

Jenny Allan said:

"Meanwhile Gorski and his hangers on including Brian Deer and 'Lilady' are having a field day!!"

Interestingly, here's what lilady has to say in response:

"Jenny Allen is also trashing me, Brian Deer and Orac."

I'm wondering where the trashing is occurring. lilady is notorious for accusing someone of "trashing" or being "insulting" when all they are doing is disagreeing. It's quite humourous, really, and an endless source of entertainment.

That woman (if she is one) is truly vile and contemptible.

And in case she reads this (we all know she has to come over here and see what we're saying about her), what I did above is trashing someone, dear. Learn the difference. Or don't...it's more entertaining for me that way.

Sadly, I agree with many who have already posted their thoughts on this. We cannot afford to let our egos (and I am not choosing sides here) stop us from achieving our goals, and this goes for our issues and every other issues we may face in our lives. "United we stand, divided we fall." It is that simple. We must find a way to put this behind us, but not before we learn from it so that it never happens again. We must become stronger than we ever were. That is what is needed here. Not one name of any one individual is any more important or significant than any other. Not one!

I too like Tim Bolen's approach, for the most part and I think that different people with various approaches can be something welcome. I like the way Tim has a legal background, that most of us lack.
Of course, I too do not understand what this particular discussion is about. I certainly think that our autism community is far too soft in some areas. When I go to California, I see these 10-12 year old autistic boys who are still given fish and flu vaccines. It is heartbreaking.(Remember friends, that although California is supposed to be a mercury-free state, in fact in years of pandemics and in years of shortage of flu vaccines, they seem to be able to waive the rule of no mercury in vaccines for children- and my impressiion is that doctors may not come to know about this. So I wonder why we arent getting more information out to the public. I think that we can tolerate a lot of diversity, but what we really need to expose are those people who become party to the public health and pharma rule- Delay, Deny, Distract.

This is in such poor taste. Jake, I'm sorry.

OIG/HHS (2/9/2013) says Poul Thorsen “is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States."
https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp

Ulla Danielsen, journalist, DK-Copenhagen (2/21/2012) says “According to the Police of Eastern Jutland, no less than the Danish government is waiting for an extradition request from the American federal government.” http://nbjour.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/a-high-level-low-priority-case-2/

Under federal laws a warrant and request for extradition into the U.S. may be issued by the U.S. Secretary of State. http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00535.htm

Is there verification available that a warrant and request for extradition has been submitted by the U.S. Secretary of State to the Danish government?

Well I like Tim and his no nonsense, take no prisoners approach, and especially when he took on such people as Bowditch, Barrett and the strange man Deere.

I am a little puzzled at what is going on here Dan .. this was not one of your better articles.

Same old, same old. I remember going to the first autism protest in D.C. and meeting the self-proclaimed "Autism Ambassador." There are so many strange birds among us (the autism apple doesn't fall far from the tree). And I don't want any of these birds representing me! We're already labeled kooks - do we need to play to that label? As much as I can't stand Mel Gibson, I have to quote a line from Braveheart: Unite the Clans! If we all could come together as one group - instead of all the fifedoms, run by our saner peers maybe we could actually make some headway and drown out the voices of every new Autism Ambassador who pops up. When is this actually going to become about the kids again and not about everyone protecting their own turf? A co-worker told me yesterday her teenage son who has asthma now has ulcerative colitis and is on heavy doses of steroids. He gets flu shots every year. We all know where he got UC from. Every damn day we're losing more and more kids if not to full blown autism, then to ADHD, bi-polar, UC, and so on and so on. When are we gonna stop this?

Infighting sucks. Let's all remember we're here for the KIDS and all those AFFECTED. Sometimes we need to put politics and pride aside and remember what really matters.

As an observer with no inside info, I am curious to know more about Beth Clay. Her role in this seems rather mixed to me--might she be representing more sides than one? Just a question.

Or is this all basically a strategy disagreement--with Safe Minds working to seem reasonable so as to hopefully convince those who might otherwise write off the controversy as a crazy conspiracy to pay more attention, versus Brian Hooker, Tim Bolen, the Geiers, and apparently Jake Crosby, who clearly think a more aggressive, combative, take no prisoners, call a spade a spade, approach is the only way to move forward?

Unfortunately, when there is this kind of infighting, everyone involved loses face, respect, and power. A sad series of events and decisions, from beginning to end, for all involved--including the "reporter."

It's good dirty laundry to be aired. By that I mean, important dirty laundry.

Review Jake's article on Tim Bolen's site. http://bit.ly/TWeTCF

Let's say it's true, Dr. Brian Hooker's explosive testimony was side-lined in favor of Mark Blaxill's merely brash speech.

We watched agog at the media lynching of Wakefield and their relentlessly rabid efforts to vilify him. It's understandable war-weary strategists at SafeMinds, opted not to overturn the card table. They - like so many here - were just happy for the invite.

The alternative ... "If you can make one heap of all your winnings and risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,"

You are there, you have Congress's attention...the Media. What exactly is the down-side? How can it possibly get any worse? Really.

I mean, even concoct a story.. "Oh, Dr. Hooker didn't provide us with THAT script". A rogue agent thing.

Many people believe Congressional hearings only signify the end of The Issue, with just a fancy drawn-out Washington burial to follow.

Are SafeMinds and AofA being co-oped by the Man? I don't think so, too much of their lives are invested. Are the war-weary taking a strategic political approach after so many rounds? Arguably.

People here get .."If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

But We Do Need a new bolder approach. Jake yer ball.
And kudos to Tim Bolen, who's not shy.

We need both strategies. We Maybe had a chance to get the ball over the line in one go. Yes, we punted. Will we get another? Gee I dunno, anybody here quittin'?

It's just strategy.

In the end, Mark & Dan & Jake are all champions here.
That won't change.


I love this part: "And now that I, Tim Bolen, have decided to run it, blah, blah, blah...".

Pompous jerk alert. Just sayin'....

And Jake, grow up. This is all ridiculous.

Speaking of varmints, has anyone heard any news about about Poul Thorsen?

"Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States."

https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp

Ain't nothin more distasteful than a bunch of partners sittin round a campfire roastin weenies and stirrin beans with buzzin flies. Maybe the truth lies in the smores.

A lot is clear as mud, but to me it particularly seems like in the end, despite the grilling from Congressional committee members, those who set up the panel (whomever they may actually be) didn't want anything not already pretty much public to be spoken. The members of Congress who did bring up the "harder" points, I don't know what to think of their intentions or what to possibly expect.

I guess I'm moving over to where I would like to see them consider how the NVICP is constitutional, how any federally created health agency and congressional involvement in health choices and institutional funding is constitutional for that matter. The way the autism epidemic came about and the way responsible parties have handled it, to me, is a strong warning against letting government grow beyond constitutional bounds or remove constitutional safeguards and against wanting government to "do something," or do anything.

Those of us not in the inner circle are going to need this spelled out. Honestly.

Dan, I have no clue what either you or Tim are talking about. Can you please explain this so that people who are not privy to all the politics can understand what is going on?

This makes me sad. I admire all the named individuals involved in this story. We all have the same goals here, to remove thimerosal from vaccines worldwide, making vaccines safer for children and adults everywhere, and justice and treatment for those who were injured. I hope that we will be able to work together to achieve these lofty goals, in the face of unethical and criminal behavior by our common enemies. Unity is a must for our side- let us learn from our strategic errors, and move on.

Infighting may have been bound to happen- much like it has in other movements. I don't really care- I'm just happy there are people advocating for kids' health.

I love your article Dan!

Tim Bolen seems like a real JERK!

having just read the article, just search its out there, I cant tell you how disappointed I am ........what is going on here? this is a bad day because this casts all kinds of doubt over peoples motives including AOA by association. So much for coming together with a common cause !

Dan:

I kind of like your Yosemite Sam characterization. I haven't seen that in a while.

I think you should have been a little clearer, and less circumspect, in your recital. Most of your readers probably have no idea what contentious issue(s) you, and I, are referring to.

Why don't you just print Jake Crosby's whole article "SafeMinds Steals The Show, Literally...”, and beat me to the punch, and let YOUR readers comment on it.

You rejected it originally and now that I, Tim Bolen, have decided to run it on www.bolenreport.com, you seem a bit upset.

Don't be. This is a story the Autism world needs to know about. A GOOD journalist would ignore the fact that the article criticizes some of the activities of 50%(?) of the AoA's funding sources, right?

And Dan - feel free to re-post the WHOLE message you were quoting that you got from me this morning.

Please don't worry about Orac. His readership is incredibly small, and, according to one of their insiders, all live in their parent's attics.

Will I see you at the Health Freedom Expo/Autism One event in Long Beach March 1, 2, and 3rd, 2013?

Tim Bolen
www.bolenreport.com

Spot on Dan loved it..up em!

Dear Dan, Mark, Jake, and All AoA Friends-

I have been reading Dan's articles since the Baltimore City Paper days. I met Mark's wife at Hear the Silence in Boston, where she shared her recipe for gluten free cranberry muffins with me. I met Jake at IOM and other DC area vaccine safety forums. AoA really helped coalesce the community of vaccine injured families into a formidable force. I am grateful for your staunch reporting, too many instances to list, but LeRoy comes to mind, Theresa Binstock's work, John Stone, the tracing of Kanner's original "autism" patients... the list goes back to your first issue.

With regards to this satirical piece- AoA has nothing to fear from Tim Bolen. Bolen I suspect means well but has blown his credibility with too many articles similar to his recent CoMed piece:

http://bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/unep%206.htm

Oddly, I don't hear the "vaccine contruct" "whimpering and moaning"- I hear them laughing like hyenas at Bolen's naivite.

The community of vaccine injured families is well aware of the recent article decrying Safemind's involvement in the Issa hearings. I would hope that AoA will soon candidly and transparently address the criticisms raised. In fairness, there are usually (at least) two sides to most stories....

Some might not like the how the Issa hearings happened- but there is no denying that Dan Burton played his tape, and that Guttmacher got drilled on C-Span. AoA- EVERYONE at AoA- played a pivotal role in getting these stakeholders together. Not every situation requires a hammer- some require an iron fist in a velvet glove....

I congratulate AoA on your achievements in raising public awareness regarding vaccine safety and vaccine injury. Your work is too important to be compromised.


Dan,

Can you please clarify...what are you talking about in this article...for those of us who do not understand Bolish or the surrounding circumstances?

"I put it in a hidden place where certain key people could see it to comment on it. It was supposed to be private. ..."

From my side of the Atlantic Ocean that 'private place' was Facebook. I previously thought Age of Autism, Safeminds, and Tim Bolen were all on the same side. Seems I was wrong and I am puzzled and perplexed by what looks like damaging 'infighting'.

Meanwhile Gorski and his hangers on including Brian Deer and 'Lilady' are having a field day!!

So where is this here article anyways?

If anyone messes with you Dan, I will channel my inner Ellie May and wrassle that pesky city varment till he says uncle!

"(Even though Safminds done cooked up that therismole idea in the first darn place!)"

Says who? The American Academy of Pediatrics and Public Health Service put out a joint statement saying thimerosal should be removed from vaccines at a time when they were already suspected of causing autism and before SafeMinds even existed.

I've said what needed to be said; if that makes me a "nouveau tough guy," then so be it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.