C'mon, Dr. Gupta!


HillarySo autism is finally on the Presidential politics radar screen...  Read Hillary Clinton's campaign pledge for autism in The New York Times

''Driven by their love and devotion, mothers and fathers across the country have raised awareness, demanded funding, and opened our eyes to the needs of so many children,'' she told a crowd of hundreds gathered at the Jesse E. Marshall Boys Club of Sioux City. ''It's up to us to reclaim the future for our children, and ensure that every child can live up to his or her God-given potential.''

(She also talks about insurance "premiums" and autism. Hasn't anyone told her most of us HAVE insurance. It simply excludes autism treatments altogether?)

If Clinton talks seriously about funding true environmental research, we'll pay close attention. But pledging millions of dollars for government funded studies on anything but the most intimate environment possible (the bloodstream) doesn't make us wave our little flags and run to the voting booth.  The government and largest autism organizations have shown no inclination to really look into the causes of autism to date. Many of us don't trust their study outcomes, which can be manipulated to express the desired results. And funding often means researchers and pharma companies rake in the money while our kids get absolutely nothing.

We're not convinced by you yet, Hillary. But we're listening. And watching.


Kathy Blanco

I am sorry, but from what I read in history, Hilllary was into the VACCINATE before two campaign? She is talking out of both sides of her mouth! Concern must come from that place inside you that admits fault, and admits reason. Where is the her fault finding and her reason for this autism epidemic, in making sure kids are vaccinated to hell and back? The reason we have this problem is that we trust Pharma to make safe vaccines/or safer ones. There is none. There is also no such thing as a greened up vaccine or a rally that can eithe change minds of THEM, or US, or manufacturing methods of making vaccines that suddenly make them safer. Taking out thimerosol won't do it, aluminum, MSG, or the like or a reduced schedule. ONE vaccine, in a propensive child is enough. Then, what are you going to leave, but rather scary adultered contaminated vials with, bacterial endotoxins, LPS and with viruses getting into your Dna and messing with your brain. NO THANKS. The faith in this whole medical genocide, has gotten us ALL here. Isn't it time we woke up and smell the coffee, that our society wants us ill?


I would just like to clarify that my post above was not written in response to Mr. Krakow's post; I wrote before his comments were posted. Although I am happy to hear Sen. Clinton acknowledge the autism epidemic, Mr. Krakow's concerns all make a lot of sense to me, and I thank and commend him for his work. There is reason for hope, yet the powers lined up on the other side are scary!

Raymond Gallup

If I was in contact with Hillary Clinton's office or any other politician I would ask them the following:

VAERS has thousands of records of adverse reactions to vaccines and the data is kept but ignored by the CDC and FDA along with the medical community. Another fact is that there have been no long-term independent safety studies done on ANY vaccine. As a parent I would recommend an independent long term study done on 100 MD's associated with the CDC, FDA and NIH that say there is no link between autism and vaccines and that vaccines are safe. I would also include MD's that get in the US news saying the same thing. Make sure that they get all the vaccines including booster shots and all the vaccines containing thimerosal in one sitting. Make sure that there is no cheating and that there medical history is documented before the shots and one year to two years after the shots. If there are any deaths after the shots, then an independent medical examiner can do an autopsy to note the cause of death. I think this study is warranted and does NOT preclude any other research studies on autism and vaccines. If the study doesn't happen because of the lack of "volunteers" then it speaks volumns about what we hear from these "experts".

Ray Gallup

Raymond Gallup


I'm not involved in this process of approaching these politicians, Lord knows I have done this in the past with zero results. I did it in September 1997 using politicians to set up a meeting with the NIH and Vijendra Singh and Oleske's group of Tina Zecca and Donnatella Graffino. Over the years in 2000 at the April autism rally and Dan Burton meeting DC I was involved with Dan Burton hearing in DC along with lots of other parents. Henry Waxman actually attacked Dan Burton's involvement with our organization, the Autism Autoimmunity Project at the time and compared us to Merck's involvement with the pro-MMR doctors (like we had millions and billions of dollars for research, what a laugh!!!). In 2003, I was in DC with Dr. Yazbak and the Autism Autoimmunity Project had a rally in DC on the mercury issue. Several parents had a meeting with Frist at the time and both Dr. Yazbak and I were uninvited. Nothing came of it naturally because Frist is a pro-vaccine MD besides being a US Senator.

In saying all this I wish you success in approach to Senator Clinton and any other politicians on this issue.

If I were approaching any politician including Hillary Clinton, I would not fight with one hand behind my back by just mentioning the thimerosal issue only. I would include the research of Vijendra Singh, Andrew Wakefield, James Oleske and others on the MMR link to autism. I would bring up the data on the autism epidemic from the US Dept. of Education and mention the fact that SSI, Medicare and Medicaid numbers will skyrocket in the next 5 to 20 years.
That would be my strategy if I was pressing any politician.

Of course, that is up to you and the others involved in this process. At least if you meet with success or don't, you go in with all guns blazing on your side.

Ray Gallup

Bob Moffitt

I think candidate Clinton has given us a great opportunity to garner wide-spread, bi-partisan political support for pending Rep. Maloney's federal legislation seeking scientific, independent study of "vaccinated vs unvaccinated" populations to ascertain, once and for all, if BOTH populations suffer the same 1 in every 6 American children with childhood development disorders.


Thanks for airing this sticky subject.

At the first White House conference on mental health in history, which was arranged after the Columbine massacre, Hillary Clinton stood on the podium and vowed to screen every child in America for mental illness, "whether they want it or not". Never mind that the two shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, *had* been "screened" and were on SSRIs at the time of the shootings. No one mentioned this at the conference, not the Clintons nor the famously pro-child-drugging psychiatrist who spoke that day. I forget the guy's name but not what he wrote: that emotional disturbances in children cannot be caused by "trauma", "violence" nor "sexual abuse" but are instead caused by "genetic brain chemical imbalances".

The screening rampage which Clinton daydreamed about has been actualized and is creeping accross the United States, supported in the legislative language of several educational programs, known variously as "Universal Mental Health Screening", "Infant Mental Health Screening" and "Teenscreen", care of Bush's "New Freedom Initiative" of 2004. All of these programs have been heavily lobbied for and funded by the psychopharmaceutical industry and front groups such as NAMI and CHADD, since as many as fifty percent of children screened under Teenscreen (a screening tool with an 84% false positive rate), for example, will receive a psychiatric referral and nine out of ten of the children following up on such a referral will receive a prescription for psychiatric medication.

And what other condition provides so much fodder and excuse to over-drug than autism and other vaccine injuries? With the line of neuroleptics awaiting an almost guaranteed approval for children with autistic "symptoms" (targeting autism itself would narrow the field too much. "Symptoms" broadens the niche almost limitlessly), pharma is gunning for our kids and is financially invested in the epidemic. To drugging advocates, the terms "screening" and "intervention" are merely vehicles to psychotropic medication and profits. So when Clinton uses these terms in regard to autism, what does she really mean? And does she still intend to provide these "interventions" whether children- or their parents- want them or not? Does her concept of autism as possibly environmentally induced make her step back from the idea of treatment with more potentially neurotoxic substances?

Hillary Clinton didn't create this drug conveyor belt per se, but she gave it some fanfare, fueled the fire from a position of influence. Maybe during the period of the White House conference, Clinton's unquestioning support of vaccinations was a case of deeply misguided good intentions. Maybe her ears were so full of that genetic "bad seed" spin at the time of Columbine that she couldn't comprehend the meaning of Harris's toxicology findings. But a full blown epidemic, many school massacres later and the addition of black box warnings for suicidality and violence on certain drug labels, she has reason to know better.

What will she do about it? I'm wondering whether she plans to eat some of the words she spoke as First Lady. I'm not saying she couldn't, but it would be like eating a plate of chicken bones and piano wire, frankly. That kind of recant has rarely been done.

I'm listening and watching and ready with the antacids. Not for Clinton but for myself.


The NY Times article quotes Sen. Clinton as saying, "often times insurance is so expensive you can't afford it, OR the insurance doesn't cover the very thing you need it for." So she is talking about coverage as well as premiums.

Whether she would be willing to admit to problems with vaccines is certainly questionable. But she is quoted as saying that there has been a huge increase in autism and that it is a national crisis, as well as that research into environmental causes should be expanded. She suggests a task force to study treatments and services (not just genes and the brain), and training for teachers. This may just be political talk, but it is so much better than what one hears from most prominent people these days. In fact, most politicians seem to be totally ignoring this national crisis, as far as I have heard.

Robert J. Krakow

Some thoughts on Sen. Clinton's Announcement and her Proposed Legislation:

The good news is that by Sen. Clinton's announcement we have confirmation that autism will, indeed, play a significant role in this election cycle. It is not just Sen. Clinton who perceives that a political opportunity exists.

If you examine the bill, the "Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act", that Sen. Clinton introduced last January (at an Autism Speaks event) it gives cause for some serious concern along with an opportunity to shape something better.

First, the push behind the legislation played to organizations and forces that have not been supportive of environmental research. While Sen. Clinton has now mouthed (or issued in a press release) the words "environmental reasons" one wonders who will shape the research, just as Dan Olmsted suggests. The jury is out on who will control our research.

The development of this bill presents a new challenge to the autism community to make sure the NIH pursues honest research informed by all that has been discovered by DAN doctors and parents. Judging by what leaders of the NIH have said recently, environmental factors are given lip service but genetics is the main focus. I have no problem using genetic investigation to unveil the clues to autism etiology, as long as genetics is not seen as the "cause." Genetics is a valid tool but a preconception that genetics has caused autism infects most of the mainstream discussion. At most, genetics is but an omnipresent factor - by our very nature genetics plays a role in almost all disease. Genetics is a research tool, not the endgame in solving etiology.

The question for research is: who controls the research. If the control is multicentric and not only controlled by industry perhaps we will get honest research.

As for the rest of Senator Clinton's bill, it poses major challenges in how it addresses treatment and services. I advise every member of our community to consider with care the language that requires development of a "standard of care" using "evidence based" research. Our public health establishment, dominated by industry that is more concerned about developing pharmaceutical interventions rather than decreasing toxic environmental exposures, controls the research agenda. The health care industry controls the production of the evidence. The treatments sanctioned via this type of legislation will be based on this "evidence." This scenario could easily presage the end of DAN! type treatments, because the type of evidence supporting such treatments will never be produced by the NIH - pharma industrial complex.

As for services, Sen. Clinton's bill is a start, but only a start. I am concerned about the bill's prescription for centralization, and its bias in favor of organizations that will provide assistance and resource centers, even though these organizations have never provided services. The bill promotes a centralized bureaucratic approach, creating a monolithic public-private autism industry. We have learned that such approaches to public health - massive infusions of cash to develop one size fits all public health campaigns with designated gatekeepers of care - have not served our children well.

Sen. Clinton's staff is savvy and undoubtedly committed to children's health. Her staff has been very responsive to several of us (at A-CHAMP Bobbie Manning and I have had continuing discussions since last December.) They have evidenced a willingness to modify the bill's language. So, while I am critical of many features of this bill I look at it as a beginning and an opportunity. All members of the autism community need to voice their concerns over this legislation or it will become the vehicle for control of the autism industry by forces that do not care about alternative treatments, DAN! type treatments, that will promote pharmaceutical interventions like Risperdal that are dangerous for our kids, that will draw resources away from the emerging non-pharmaceutical biomedical interventions that have helped many kids, and will bury the idea that many cases of autism are the product of vaccine injury.

This bill could be even more important than the Combating Autism Act. Our community must learn the hard lessons we learned last year with CAA and not permit one organization and one interest to orchestrate the agenda. We must organize ourselves to stop this from happening.

On the services side, if we are not careful this bill could initiate "Autism, Incorporated" and we can easily guess who will own the franchise for this new enterprise. What we need are community-based programs controlled by those directly affected, including the many local organizations that now provide services, but desperately need more resources. Mechanisms for decentralization and innovations are what is needed, not developing a new public-private centralized industrial authority that will control what happens to our children.

The challenge for us as a community is to take the opportunity that is being provided and make sure that through focused advocacy we forge legislation that will truly serve our children well. We must not settle for something less because we are cowed by heavy-handed political expediency.

I say to my fellow advocates the following: now begins a renewed opportunity to help our kids. We need to pursue this together, in a unified fashion. If we don't then the big money boys will dominate once again. Our kids will suffer as a result. Are you up for the challenge?

Robert J. Krakow, Esq.
Co-Founder, A-CHAMP
Co-Founder, Autism United

Garden City, New York

Raymond Gallup

I am not part of the Gallup polling organization but I believe that Hillary Clinton will be President in 2008. In saying this I don't support her, just saying what will actually happen in 2008.

No American President has supported the public interest over the pharmaceutical companies, the NIH, CDC and FDA. No future American President will support the public interest over the pharmaceutical companies, the NIH, CDC and FDA (whether it is Hillary Clinton or any other future President from 2008 and on). No President can get the NIH and the CDC to fund any research that will link vaccines to autism. The CDC and the NIH will never fund any research linking autism to vaccines because basically they are owned by the pharmaceutical companies.

Any person that gets elected to the White House as President owes the pharmaceutical companies for their election victory. They won't put the public interest ahead of the pharmaceutical companies.
A given fact.

Raymond Gallup


u took the words right out of my mouth!!!!


Wasn't it the Clinton admin that allowed the childhood vaccines schedule to go through the roof in the 1990s and their FDA that never bothered to add up the 125+ mcg of mercury in their new and improved schedule? No way Clinton will be on board with looking at vaccines. Never.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


Post a comment

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

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)