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!!

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'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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

I love your article Dan!

Tim Bolen seems like a real JERK!

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

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.

"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!!

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