Ruckus?

Can’t tell for sure what the intent is behind your comment considering your “signature” but what you’ve stated is a given. I think just about everyone in our community “gets that” -- left to their own devices, no one in the “establishment” is going to *voluntarily* do any research which would implicate vaccines.

So then we’re left with two choices at that point: we can sit back and let the millions be spent on whatever they decide without having any input or we can *try* and interject ourselves into the process.

(Hint: I’m not willing to sit by and twiddle my thumbs)

THAT was the point of yesterday’s meeting. Everyone in that room knew where Mark stood on this issue – his message was strong and consistent.

Diplomacy has nothing to do with *watering* down the message -- rather it has EVERYTHING to do with the method of *approach*. I think sometimes people forget that fact and automatically think "sitting down at the table" equates with "weakness of message."

Case in point: At the recent NVAC meeting in DC during my public comment time I made it very clear that I didn’t think Lisa Randall’s involvement in the meeting was a good decision considering that she worked for IAC which is funded by 5 Pharmaceutical companies and two branches of the CDC.

Diplomatic? Yes. Wimpy? Never.

Could it be there is no standardized coding system for autism research because they don't really want to spend any dollars on autism. Maybe the thought process is, nobody is going to make us do this so why bother. Because if someone were to do some *real* autism research the finger would come back to vaccines - in a big way. Now who would want to do such a thing?

Beware!

And so *exactly* how do you propose to “stop the insane vaccination schedule” specifically?

By YELLING at buildings? By issuing threats to those who have the power to make the necessary changes?? Do you honestly think they are going to be “open” to what you have to say if you approach them in that way?

And how do you plan on “winning” this battle without research to back you up? Do you honestly think stepping into a courtroom without enough solid research and yelling at the judge to “LISTEN TO US” is going to win your case???

I’m not suggesting that *ruckus* isn’t necessary – quite the contrary – we need it and I think JB is one of the best when it comes to this. But, the fact is, both ruckus AND diplomacy are needed to “get what we want” and this meeting tomorrow is all about DIPLOMACY.

Approximately $650 million has been allocated to autism research over the next ten years due to CAA.

Personally, I can’t think of ANYONE better suited to be in that room tomorrow than Mark Blaxill, Martha Herbert, and Lyn Redwood (to name a few). Their efforts will help in making sure that money is directed towards the research that will help us in “making our case” stronger!

About 2 ½ years ago, Mark and I spoke to a leader of a major AID’s organization. We were “picking his brain” on the processes they used to get the change they wanted and I was surprised that many of the points he was making our community was already doing.

There was one statement that he made which I will never forget and I believe it’s extremely important to remember:

“While there were hundreds of thousands of marchers on the Mall outside, I was sitting inside the White House discussing our issue with the Vice President.”

Bottom Line: Ruckus AND Diplomacy are needed and I, for one, am thankful that Mark, Martha and Lyn are willing to devote their personal time and energy to this important issue.

Kelli