OLMSTED ON AUTISM: ABC SNAPS TO ATTENTION OVER VACCINE CASE
GOV'T ADMITS VACCINE AUTISM LINK

WHY SO LITTLE HELP FOR AUTISTIC CHILDREN?

Hang_to_dryBy Sandy Gottstein

Why Aren’t Autistic Children Getting The Establishment Help They Need?

One of the most puzzling aspects of the autism fiasco is the failure of The Establishment to participate meaningfully in research into how to manage, treat and/or cure the disorder.  Congressman Burton held at least one hearing on the subject.  In the one I attended, NIH was grilled on the paucity of funding compared to conditions like diabetes and AIDS, some of which are considerably less widespread than autism is now understood to be.

These children have clearly been left out to dry by The Establishment.  The burning question, in my opinion, is why?

Although purely speculative on my part, the only answer I can come up with is that any solution might well reveal the cause.  And if the cause is vaccines, they’d simply rather not know.

More to the point, they’d rather we not know.

Now because I don’t personally have an effected child, I’m not up on the various protocols that are being use to treat, even cure, these children.  What I do know, however is that every time chelation is offered and reduces symptoms, it is evidence that heavy metal(s), including mercury, might be involved. 

That’s the last thing they want us to find out.

Meanwhile they argue genetics, basically incurable, untreatable genetics.  Genetics, the one “cause” not amenable to treatment.  Genetics, the one “cause” not amenable to finding a solution.   

Never mind that genetic disorders usually need a trigger to be activated. 

And the fact that there are no known genetic epidemics?  Voilà, there is no increase!

If it weren’t for the parents and some doctors (many of whom are parents of an autistic child or two), we would have no idea that these children can and do get better. 

But now we do.  And it could not be clearer that The Establishment has two choices:  it can either continue to be part of the problem or start becoming part of the solution. 

If vaccines are a cause, given that The Establishment recommended and continues to recommend vaccines in ever growing numbers, it won’t be an easy choice.  Admitting culpability never is. 

Still, I wonder what they’ll choose. 

Sandy Gottstein is the President of Vaccination News, A Non-Profit Corporation (www.vaccinationnews.org) and long-time advocate for better vaccine safety studies and against mandatory vaccination.  She decided by early 1987 to forgo further vaccination of her children (other than one tetanus) and is the lucky mother of two children with no known vaccine issues.

Comments

Sandy Gottstein

Please note that I mistakenly put part of this under Kent's column....time for a nap.

Okay, for what it's worth, here's the "latest". I looked at every study listed at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. (There were 105 under "autistic disorder.) Here is what they say about themselves: "ClinicalTrials.gov is a registry of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States and around the world. ClinicalTrials.gov gives you information about a trial's purpose, who may participate, locations, and phone numbers for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health care professionals. ". It is stated to be "A service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health". NIH, in its section about itself, declares "The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research."

The studies listed include those which are in process, recruiting, and completed. There was NOT ONE study sponsored or co-sponsored by NIH from what I can tell, although there were quite a few sponsored or co-sponsored by NIMH. Some were obviously sponsored or co-sponsored by drug companies. And although there were many University studies that did not indicate any drug company ties, it is not possible to know if there were indirect ties, like department and/or university contributions from such companies.

There was ONLY ONE study concerning chelation and that study left out the population most likely to benefit from chelation and/or to result in the most dramatic change.

What does that say about any official desire to understand a topic which might lead to a connection with vaccines?

I also just discovered NIH has a Mercury-Free Campaign aka NIH Mercury Abatement Program (http://orf.od.nih.gov/Environmental+Protection/Mercury+Free/ ). It should be noted when they list the sources of mercury, they do not specifically mention vaccines, although they do mention biologics. (http://orf.od.nih.gov/Environmental+Protection/Mercury+Free/SourcesofMercury.htm )

'Nuff said? Not by a long shot. (Pun intended.)

Twyla

Mr. HL Doherty -
Sandy's article seems quite sensible to me, not simplistic. It's utterly amazing that autism affects so many, and that there is so much evidence that: vaccines and environmental toxins are factors, that many autistic kids have multiple health problems affecting digestion, biochemical processes and the immune system, and that many kids with autism are improving with biomedical treatments -- yet most of this is being ignored by those who should be helping us and our children. Years ago the government made a commitment to helping those with vaccine injuries, but instead we are encountering a wall of denial and obfuscation. This is not simplistic nor speculative.

I don't know what is happening in Canada, but if the Canadian government pays for healthcare it is not surprising that there would not be a rush to take on responsibility for paying for autism treatments.

Biomedmama7's comment is right on the mark.

Sandy's concerns about how research is done are very real.

Few people other than parents of autistic kids are fully aware of these issues (except for a few gems such as Sandy and Dan Olmstead!)

Sandy Gottstein

For instance, here is a study on chelation that NIH is involved with. (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00376194?cond=%22Autistic+Disorder%22&rank=35 ) Now look at who is allowed in the study:
"Children between 4 and 10 years of age with autism spectrum disorder who weigh at least 33 pounds, who have detectable, but not toxic, levels of mercury or lead in the blood, and who have not previously received chelation therapy may be eligible for this study." While there may well be good reasons not to include those who have "toxic" levels of mercury, the net result will be to dilute out the effect of chelation, whatever it may be. Sorry for being so cynical, but I can't help but wonder if this is deliberate. Regardless of the intent, however, it will dilute the effect of chelation.

I also wonder what their definition of toxic is and what percent of autistic children would fall under this definition.

Let's see if the research results contradict the experience of the autism community about what is actually helping their children. Let's see if claims are made by the establishment that those who are now better never really had autism at all.

Let's see if they come up with meaningful research that results in meaningful help.

Sandy Gottstein

Now let's see if the research results contradict the experience of the autism community about what is actually helping their children. Let's see if claims are made by the establishment that those who are now better never really had autism at all.

Let's see if the research is designed to specifically disprove those protocols that demonstrate autism links to vaccines.

I certainly hope not.

BTW I said outright that it was speculative.

Sandy Gottstein

It looks like I didn't do my homework. There are relevant NIH studies in the works. Now let's hope they are fair-minded and well-designed.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Sandy Gottstein

Sorry that I wasn't clear, Harold. But I was referring more to research, which is why I mentioned NIH. I don't see the establishment doing research into protocols that will help autistic children. What I do see is them criticizing those protocols that are helping children. But perhaps I am missing some critical information. All the best, Sandy

biomedmama7

It's pretty simple for me. The govt. was complicit in damaging our child - who should be, at the age of 17, in the planning stages of a career and an independent life instead of this totally dependent "5 year old" who is ravaged by seizures.

I had a great job with great benefits before the seizures began, two weeks after a hepatitis booster, at which point we were slammed into a life well below the poverty level. Fast forward to 2006 when our state discontinued private physician ordered OT, PT, and speech therapies. Don't even get me started about services for autistic children in our school district. FAPE is a joke in this town if your child is autistic.

Just think about what has happened lately in some states - services denied - more mercury laden vaccines forced on people. They think they can force us to accept this?

They - with pharmaceutical companies assistance - should be providing everything for these children. They certainly can afford it. They knew what they were doing to children years ago and they continued. No excuses now. They broke them and us and have profitted immensely from it. Now there is no choice but to do everything financially possible to fix them and give them the best quality of life possible. They can afford it. Some of the things we wish for our child aren't nearly as expensive as the drugs and long-term care that would be needed if not for biomedical interventions. I think they are banking on more profits from long-term care facilities. They can forgettaboutit where we are concerned. By the way, guess whose family owns long-term health care facilities? (Think Tennessee and the Homeland Security Bill.)

This multi-billion dollar industry from mercury poisoning has got to stop. In any other situation where someone's child is poisoned, there would be sooooo much more outrage. Because it's pharmaceuticals and multi-billion dollar profits, it's OK?

Ha! Not by a long shot. Not for this mom or my child.

I agree with Sandy.

Jeanne

With respect, admitting there is a problem is the first step. Not the only step, just the first. Like encouraging a child to walk, "Come on, you can do it!" Baby steps. Once the first steps are taken, look out! You can't stop the process once it starts.

You might perceive Sandy's comments as simplistic, and maybe they are; but, in order to get the job done, sometimes you have to break it down and make it simple... to start with. Get everyone on the same page first, then bring out the big guns.

Harold L Doherty

No offense but your theory seems somewhat simplistic and speculative.

In Canada, which has more of a public approach to provision of health services than the US, our federal government has shrugged its shoulders and refused to provide funding for autism services or treatment.

Amongst our provincial governments autism assistance varies from province to province depending on a number of factors including the relative wealth of each province and the focus, organization and intensity of autism advocacy, primarily by parents, in each province.

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.

Your Information

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