Dear Hillary, Can We Talk?
By Cathy Jameson
I saw a teaser from Bloomberg Politics last week while we were visiting family on Christmas vacation. I tried to stay away from the news and relax, but when I saw that autism was mentioned in the headline, I took a minute to find a quiet place to read the link.
The link truly was a tease! Very little information was offered, but as the parent of a child with autism, I’m very much looking forward to reading what the former Secretary of State has to say. I’ll readily admit, though, that as the parent of a child with autism—whose autism is a result of childhood vaccines, I am hesitant to get too excited about the plan that Mrs. Clinton is about to unveil.
Clinton, currently a presidential candidate, was quick to point out in early 2015 that she, a grandmother of one, knows best about vaccines. As the mother of five, whose two sons were adversely affected by vaccines, I beg to differ.
I could be wrong, but with her past statement, I don’t believe that Mrs. Clinton is ready to fully support me or my son with autism.
For many parents, we clearly know that vaccines and autism went hand in hand – and not in a good way. Unless her plan includes preventing autism, which means also addressing the out-of-control vaccine schedule, I don’t hold out too much hope that her autism plan will be more than be a nice gesture.
I am tired about hearing that we should be doing something about autism and would rather actually do something about the disorder. I’d rather not wait for another “Autism President” to talk about a plan that will go nowhere. That said, I fully support what other people are saying we need to do about autism. Lisa Wiederlight’s recent proposal to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), a federal autism advisory committee, was spot on. I can get behind her plan and hope that others, including Mrs. Clinton, will as well.
Wiederlight, Executive Director of SafeMinds and parent of a teenager on the autism spectrum – and someone who I can identify with, recommended creating four working groups, including one that sounds similar to one of the bullet points mentioned in the Bloomberg link – to provide support for parents/caregivers.
The other topics Wiederlight presented, which are equally as critical and most certainly should be addressed by the IACC committee—and by anyone who chooses to include discussion of autism on their political platform, include wandering/elopement, environmental factors related to the rise in the autism rate, and co-occurring conditions and autism.
I believe that creating those groups is simple yet logical. Moreover, I believe that creating them is doable. Of course, those four topics do not include all aspects of the autism spectrum, nor do they represent each person’s concerns, but they do sum up what many parents of children with autism and vaccine injury have voiced for years now.
Others, like Mrs. Clinton, may believe that different groups or autism action plans should exist, and according to Bloomberg, we should know soon what her thoughts are.
Now, if Mrs. Clinton’s topics happen to be similar to what Wiederlight shared, I’d encourage her to join the discussion that was started at that last IACC meeting. I’ll go a step further, too. I’d ask that if Mrs. Clinton really is serious about presenting a national autism plan, which hopefully includes not just thoughts but action on how to reduce the alarming autism rate, which was recently reported by the CDC to be 1 in 45, then she, too, should begin to attend the IACC meetings. She’d learn what research is being done. She’d learn what research is not being done. She’d have the ears of several leaders of the autism community. She’d also be able to meet and discuss issues with parents of severely affected children, including how vaccines and other environmentals contributed to their child’s diagnosis. I’ve been told by some of those parents, who time and time again travel great distances to speak to the committee, do not feel that they are heard by the committee. Imagine what could be done for families if someone like Mrs. Clinton considered stepping in!
As main caregiver to a severely affected child who requires round-the-clock care, it’s nearly impossible for me to get to those meetings, but I’d welcome a willing advocate to step in in my place. So, Hillary, if you’re serious about addressing autism, and if you’re open to listening to the parent of a non-verbal vaccine-injured child, I’d love to talk. Oh, how I’d love to talk to you about this thing called autism.
Cathy Jameson is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.
david m burd
I did not mention chronic fatigue randomly as just another example. As you point out it lies in the context of more vaccines. It seems that some of the same pathology in CFS is also part of at least a subset of those with Autism. and the increase of both conditions appears to be related.
Is Autism Related to CFS and Fibromyalgia?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/complementary-medicine/201106/is-autism-related-cfs-and-fibromyalgia
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Autism
http://phoenixrising.me/treating-cfs-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/treating-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-mecfs-glutathione-and-the-methylation-cycle/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-and-autism
Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Part of an Inflammatory Disorders “Epidemic”?….Autism, Inflammation, Autoimmunity and ME/CFS
http://www.cortjohnson.org/blog/2013/03/28/is-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-part-of-the-inflammatory-disorders-epidemic-autism-inflammation-autoimmunity-and-mecfs/
Posted by: Visitor | January 05, 2016 at 03:35 PM
Visitor and All,
Here are the vaccinations REQUIRED for admittance by the University of Virginia; if anybody can find a college much different, I'd like to know.
Required Immunizations by the University of Virginia -- Tom Jefferson would weep at this subservience to Government tyranny, and this massive machine-gun injection of poisons.
Measles/Mumps/Rubella
Meningococcal Disease
Tetanus/Diphtheria
Tuberculosis Screening/PPD
Hepatitis B
Information on your initial polio vaccine series
Posted by: david m burd | January 05, 2016 at 07:06 AM
Visitor,
Yes, revolution against the vaccine dogma from the bottom up is maybe the only answer. It can become like the rising tide - unstoppable.
Pertinently you brought up "chronic fatigue" that rose out of nowhere in the mid-1980s with even some of the most popular magazines calling it "Yuppie Flu" as virtually all afflicted were just out into the world with their college/university degrees and many (if not most) remain disabled such as Laura Hillebrand who wrote Seabiscuit and more recently Unbroken.
I contend chronic fatigue was (and still is) demonstrably caused by a massive onslaught of vaccines forced on college students, mandated by the States in a cascade of new laws in that precise mid-1980's time span. Of course those draconian vaccine mandates are still in place today - all one has to do is to see what is REQUIRED to be admitted to colleges today. Thus we have yet another segment of our older teenage citizens being badly damaged even though their parents were wise enough to get them safely through childhood.
Posted by: david m burd | January 05, 2016 at 06:34 AM
There is no current presidential candidate truly minded to address environmental causation. Political selection by money giving us our choices or electoral suicide due to being deceived or apathetic is killing the rise of a candidacy of a true progressive and is preemptive of a Lincoln or Kennedy in our time in this area much more important than terrorism or taxation. Our way is from the bottom up, like all revolutions. Trump is a non-conformist in appeal, but he only uses this as rhetoric to form an aura of power to shield him from any attack. He is full of it, and his way appeals to the naïve and fearful. Clinton is status quo, the antithesis of real change. When, and if we succeed the choice of a candidate will be clear. It is not.
Any of the would be leaders will champion our cause when it becomes advantageous to them, not until. If we are to succeed it will be by the inadvertent inevitability of evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that vaccines and other environmental factors are effecting our bodies in generationally harmful ways much like chronic fatigue is now being found to be an organic illness rooted in other than psychological causes after some 30 years. A politicians main concern is to get elected.
Posted by: Visitor | January 05, 2016 at 02:30 AM
Sounds good, Ronald.
How do we get you on the ballot?
Posted by: Linda1 | January 04, 2016 at 10:28 PM
John,
"We should note also that we have had successes - for instance, in the several states last year where bad legislation was fended off."
The vaccine-autism situation you describe is no different from the EMF situation. Nothing is being reversed! Some additional bad events have been blocked. Every once in a while, a cell tower is rejected after strong opposition, or perhaps WiFi is limited in a school. Overall, in both cases, the situation has deteriorated in the last couple of years, following a long-term downward trend.
A number of AoA posters in the past few months have expressed the hope that Presidential candidate A or B or C would help reverse the situation. I look at these candidates differently. From my perspective, none of the candidates comes anywhere near what is required to halt the adverse health onslaught we are seeing with respect to vaccines, other drugs, and other environmental toxins.
When I completed examination of the 800+ foundational causes of disease for my book, it seemed to me there was an overwhelming latent factor responsible for many/most of these contributing factors. The introduction of modern technology across our society, in tandem with very inadequate regulation in terms of health and safety, was the main driver of the full spectrum of non-communicable diseases that we experience today.
That's the foundational problem, and that needs to be eliminated before public health can be improved. To solve this problem, we need (at a minimum) a President and Congressional majority who would support the strongest regulatory measures to insure that proposed products are tested adequately for short, medium, and long-term safety (including potential transgenerational effects). This is diametrically opposite to what we have today, and what I see being proposed by the Presidential candidates and by Congress.
Most of the candidates talk about drastically REDUCING regulations, stating that existing regulations hamper business growth. For example, SENs Cruz and Lee have introduced the RESULT Act, which would:
"-allow for reciprocal approval of drugs, devices and biologics from foreign sponsors in EU member countries, Israel, Australia, Canada and Japan
-require FDA to make a decision on “life-saving” drug and device applications within 30 days
-allow Congress to override FDA denials of certain applications for life-saving drugs with a majority vote via a joint resolution"
Obviously, this would become a 'race for the bottom'. A drug company could get approval in the country with the lowest standards, and then get it approved in the USA. If the FDA were to reject it, their decision could be over-ridden by Congress. So, we would end up with a system where the politicians would be making the final decision on drug safety. Well, maybe it's not so unique; isn't that the basis of the California vaccine mandate?
If, however, we could somehow install a President and Congress who would support the required stringent safety regulations, then vaccines would only enter the market after they have been shown to be safe in the short and long-term (in the recommended schedule), wireless devices would only enter the market after they have been shown to be safe in the short and long-term, pesticides....., biosludge......., etc. More deliberate entrance of new products into the marketplace (after adequate safety testing) would reduce much business growth substantially. It would reduce GDP substantially as well, but much of the GDP reduction would come from elimination of costs (medical and otherwise) incurred as a consequence of the adverse effects and diseases caused by these products entering the market prematurely.
So, rather than looking for Presidential and Congressional candidates who are sympathetic to reducing adverse effects of vaccines, or EMF, or glyphosate, or....., we try to identify candidates who will address the foundational issue of inadequate safety regulation. This transitions us from fighting these losing battles as small isolated communities (silos) to an integrated large community that pools our efforts against vaccines, EMF, glyphosates, biosludge, etc.
If anyone can identify such candidates today, let me know. Especially those who might also be sympathetic to reduced business growth!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | January 04, 2016 at 06:13 PM
Ronald,
This summary of the The Nuremberg Code is from the National Vaccine Information Center here in Virginia, and I believe was presented, but ignored by the California Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown when imposing SB277 on California.
"Out of the Doctors Trial in Nuremberg came the Nuremberg Code, of which Yale law professor, physician and ethicist Jay Katz has said "if not explicitly then at least implicitly, commanded that the principle of the advancement of science bow to a higher principle: protection of individual inviolability. The rights of individuals to thoroughgoing self-determination and autonomy must come first. Scientific advances may be impeded, perhaps even become impossible at times, but this is a price worth paying."
In another article, Dr. Katz said that the judges of the Nuremberg tribunal, overwhelmed by what they had learned, "envisioned a world in which free women and men, after careful explanation, could make their own good or bad decisions, but not decisions unknowingly imposed on them by the authority of the state, science, or medicine."
Bioethicist Arthur Caplan concurred when he said, "The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them."
The First Principle of the Nuremberg Code is "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."
The Nuremberg Code, which speaks most specifically to the use of human beings in medical research but also has been viewed by bioethicists and U.S. courts as the basis for the right to informed consent to medical procedures carrying a risk of injury or death, was followed by the passage in 1964 of the Helsinki Declarations by the World Medical Association. Like the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declarations emphasized the human right to voluntary, informed consent to participation in medical research that may or may not benefit the individual patient, science or humanity."
A President could of course present this view to the American public, and not have to go through a hapless Congress or Supreme Court, and this President could accompany this Nuremberg principle with a reasoned view advocating an immediate complete review and overhaul of the Vaccine Cabal dogma.
What could plausibly follow would be massive civil disobedience to force school boards around the country to revise their dogma requiring vaccinations. Concurrently, lawsuits with countless experts testifying about vaccines' overwhelming dangers can also vitally turn the tide.
Yes, a President truly educated and involved can save the day.
Posted by: david m burd | January 04, 2016 at 05:22 PM
Hi Ronald
But I don't know that there is any particular strategy that we are not following: indeed we have no doubt multiple strategies and multiple talents - I don't even think it would be any good if we fined it down to one thing. We should note also that we have had successes - for instance, in the several states last year where bad legislation was fended off. This involved incredible work, wit and perseverence. There was even much right with the campaign in California but in the end there was nothing that could be done immediately speaking against that level of corruption. Of course, we want more traction, more people, more money (!!!) but personally I am never happy if I think that the people who have fought the good fight at many levels are criticised.
Posted by: John Stone | January 04, 2016 at 04:11 PM
For Ronald,
" A necessary condition for changing anything is believing that you can."
No disagreement there. But, other necessary conditions are: state the problem as clearly as possible, even though it may be uncomfortable; develop a strategic plan that shows a realistic path to victory; gather the full spectrum of resources that will allow the plan to be implemented; acquire people who will make whatever sacrifices are necessary to achieve the final goals. That goes far beyond belief and motivation. The surface of what needs to be done has hardly been scratched when it comes to vaccines, EMF, biosludge, fluoridation, glyphosates, etc.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | January 04, 2016 at 03:08 PM
She wants to find a cure for Alzheimer's but not autism? Why is that?
I'd vote for Sanders if he showed himself to be open-minded about problems with vaccines. If not, I'll vote for Trump even though I find a lot of his palaver deeply annoying (and even though I'm a Democrat).
Posted by: Carol | January 04, 2016 at 02:19 PM
It seems to boil down to more campaigns aimed at awareness (films like Trace Amounts, protests, petitions, rallies, one page ads and people simply refusing to comply and homeschool) IMHO.
Posted by: @For Ronald and all | January 04, 2016 at 12:50 PM
Ronald
But what is your point? No one said these people were push-overs but we must continue to direct our criticism against them - call them out. A lot of this story may be about the big industrial interests but it also about the moral weakness of politicians as a class. A necessary condition for changing anything is believing that you can. The machine might run even faster if we did nothing.
Posted by: For Ronald | January 04, 2016 at 09:58 AM
For Ronald,
" "Give up", is not a constructive message."
My post was neither a constructive nor destructive message. It was my view on the likelihood of Presidential action under present conditions. Looking at the situation through rose-colored glasses, and presenting that as 'constructive', is both unrealistic and misleading.
My last paragraph stated: "Unless the structure of Congress is changed radically and/or a strong majority of the public shows strong resistance to the present vaccination policy, I see no way any President would take a hard stand on this issue." That's what needs to be done based on present realities. It is far more difficult than hoping some President will come along in today's environment, and act counter to his/her campaign donors' wishes, the wishes of Congress, and the motivations of the Supreme Court, on vaccine policy and EMF policy. Posting 'constructive' messages may make people feel better, but how will that contribute to real progress?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | January 04, 2016 at 09:44 AM
Ronald
It is something we ought to expect from them, not somethething we do expect from them - but all we can do is keep reporting, keep campaigning, keep challenging, keep lobbying. "Give up", is not a constructive message.
Posted by: For Ronald | January 04, 2016 at 08:30 AM
Expecting any of the Presidential candidates to take a hard line on drugs in general and vaccines in particular is wishful thinking. First, given that no member of Congress (of which I'm aware) supported Posey's call for a Hearing, the President would have to create an initiative opposed almost unanimously by Congress. I can't think of any initiative in recent memory that didn't have at least a majority in the President's own party, and usually a substantial majority. I cannot conceive that a President would go forward with such an initiative with essentially no Congressional support.
Second, the 'healthcare' industry, and other industries associated with 'healthcare' (such as investment organizations), donate campaign funds to candidates across the spectrum. Here is one list of major donors to Hillary Clinton campaigns in the past (https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career). Note the concentration of Wall Street organizations. Do you believe they would have any interest in adversely affecting the profitability of the 'healthcare' industry, given their investment recommendations and portfolios?
Finally, none of the Presidential candidates have discussed adverse health impacts of vaccines (as far as I am aware) in their 2016 rallies and meetings. Response to one question in one debate is not a marker of strong interest in altering vaccine policy.
Unless the structure of Congress is changed radically and/or a strong majority of the public shows strong resistance to the present vaccination policy, I see no way any President would take a hard stand on this issue.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | January 04, 2016 at 07:18 AM
By now you should realize, Hillary's campaign is all about pretend, pretension and posturing.
She will appear to be concerned and will project that concern. There will be talk of plans, of new ideas or, like the last one, of "change you can believe in".
In the end, nothing has changed, what you will get is another corporatist fake democrat.
Be skeptical of her, be aware of the scam, don't be seduced by it....and then decide to vote for one or the other of the only two real candidates out there - Sanders and Trump.
Or...look a little deeper, and vote for the single real candidate out there. You'll figure it out.
Posted by: James R. Pannozzi | January 04, 2016 at 02:39 AM
Having seen what Hillary said about Autism when recently asked was disturbing. She spoke mostly about things that were implemented in the 70's.She seemed to boast and hover on the history of the idea.. It appeared to me if she was void on today's issues. It reminded me of a doll where you used to pull the string on the back to hear what it would say. At one time I was in favor of having a woman president. Today I am less so because of the ties to vaccine maker's and toxic foods. She has been Trumped.
Posted by: Shelley Tzorfas | January 04, 2016 at 01:50 AM
For all you politicians but Trump or maybe Rand, maybe Carson: it's way too little, way too late. We the people are totally pissed off that this many children are affected and in the words of Stevie Wonder, "You haven't done nothin'."
Posted by: @most politicians | January 03, 2016 at 08:44 PM
Cute Caring Granny Clinton in 2008..
In response to a questionnaire from an autism advocacy group, she wrote,
"I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out."
Fooled once Guys, twice, thrice,?
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | January 03, 2016 at 08:01 PM
I do not suppose the Clinton’s took little Charlotte to get her two dose mercury flu shot this year...
I would guess there will be no American MMR vaccine for Charlotte... or perhaps they will get a few individual M / M / R vaccines on the next pleasant trip to France.
If Trump is ever asked about the corrupt vaccine program on the road, I am sure the mainstream media would not cover his response on a major newscast.
As Trump knows American healthcare needs some help,
it would seem exposing the Autism/ vaccine medical fraud would be an opening line in his speeches, there are hundreds of Autism and vaccine SIDS cases at every location he stops.
Posted by: cmo | January 03, 2016 at 07:06 PM
"The other topics ... are equally as critical and most certainly should be addressed ... by anyone who chooses to include discussion of autism on their political platform, include wandering/elopement ..."
Google autism and wandering and see the tragic difference between autism awareness ("sending a message" something in which Clinton et al, excels) and autism action.
For example, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-of-missing-autistic-boy-found-in-pennsylvania/
Posted by: MamaBear | January 03, 2016 at 07:05 PM
Nope...Mrs. Clinton, if elected, will bring this country further into oblivion, much like Obama and, unfortunately, Bush as well. Our country is facing terrorism which has and will continue to be the nation's focus so they won't have to deal with autism. The cost to "protect" our nation will consume more money and energy. This means my son, damaged by Vaccines, is and will continue to be my full responsibility. I say cut all the entitlements for people capable of working and generate funds to heal and/or take care of our children who were knowing damaged by Vaccines. The government supported and recommended these Vaccines but will not take responsibility for the life-long care the people will need. It disgusts me! I've had to give up my job to care for my son which means lost income and retirement savings. No one wants the responsibility to care for him when my husband and I are gone. Now that I'm in my 50s, it is getting even harder to manage everything... Meds, doctors, special foods, schooling, OTs, SLPs, finding caregiver help... Well I'm preaching to the choir here so I'll stop my ranting!
Posted by: WarriorMom | January 03, 2016 at 06:38 PM
The only thing we know about Hillary is that she lies. I can only imagine how much big pharma has donated to Bill and Hill. Trump is the only candidate not in anyone's pocket and he seems like the only one who thinks vaccines cause autism. I don't pretend to know what he will do if elected but odds are he is the only one who would address vaccines at all.
Posted by: NanNJ | January 03, 2016 at 05:47 PM
Also, in terms of all her work in universal health care or "Obamacare," we see that they mean "get your damned shots or you won't be getting your pension, your medicine..."
Posted by: Hillary will do nothing about autism | January 03, 2016 at 02:08 PM
Hillary isn't making a nice gesture- she's just realizing that this issue is a big one. Many people are affected and the number is growing. It reminds me of when Obama mentioned it once in his campaign. We are worse off than ever before under Democrats. Look at California! She is neck deep in with pharma and will do nothing. Trump actually dares speak out and seems to really care about what's going on. He seems more invested in having an actual healthy population.
Posted by: Hillary will do nothing about autism | January 03, 2016 at 02:05 PM
If Hilary Clinton was interested in autism, she has had decades of public service in the bright spotlight to show it. Now because she's campaigning for president she's all of a sudden concerned. I don't think so.
If you want to lock Pharma's boot in position on your neck, she's your candidate.
I remember listening to her husband take questions from an audience not long after 9/11. Someone asked him about the US gov't's possible role in the attacks. He glared at the guy as horns rose from the sides of his head, fangs came out, his voice lowered as foam formed on the sides of his mouth as he said, "HOW... DARE YOU?". Then his horns and fangs went back in and he went on to the next question.
Prior to that moment I liked Clinton, even though he was fooling around in the White House. Even though he had looked straight into the camera and denied having relations with a White House intern. I figured his sex life was none of anyone's business and they pushed him to lie to protect himself. But when I saw his viciousness towards that citizen asking him a question, I realized, no, there's something deeper going on here. Something really bad. Those were his true colors. You as a citizen dare not question this government. Is that what we want? Is that what we need? I don't think so. I would never vote for him or her or anyone connected with them ever again.
Posted by: Linda1 | January 03, 2016 at 01:58 PM
IMO, Clinton is hopeless. She is too deeply in bed with pharmaceutical and banksters mafias, and too dishonest. The hopeful candidates are Trump and Paul, although the last one seems without a real chance. Trump as independently wealthy can afford to be honest and patriotic, and he may actually save America. We should give him all the support he needs. I am writing this as a democrat.
Posted by: no-vac | January 03, 2016 at 01:56 PM
It's my belief that Hillary will do absolutely NOTHING for the autism community.
Posted by: AnneJ | January 03, 2016 at 01:55 PM
John Stone; You are correct.
She was not one of those first lady that picked out Christmas decorations or which design of dishes - -- Hilary -- she was the one trying to get some kind of health care insurance - reform stuff - that we did finally get that is sucking me dry -- since I am paying for two grown kids at home that are employed and if I don't I won't get my federal tax that has been held back claiming them as dependents.
Hilary's plan is, or was the same as Obama Care? I think so.
But she was very involved with her husband's rule.
Posted by: benedetta | January 03, 2016 at 01:54 PM
Thank you, Cathy, for covering this critical topic.
This conversation has to continue.
Autism now affects more than 2 percent of our CHILDREN. That numbing reality doesn't seem to have sunk in back in Washington. While elected officials and presidential candidates argue about health care reform, the economy, and the terrorism threat, no one is in a panic over what's happening to our children. I can predict that Clinton's autism plan will be a call for awareness, services and support. It won't be a demand that we address autism as a national crisis, in fact we'll probably be told that autistic Americans represent an opportunity for us and we need to utilize their unique abilities, etc.
Most of all, Clinton won't be worried about what autism is doing to our children. She may even try to convince us that autism affects every age group at the same rate.
She won't be asked the HARD QUESTIONS.
THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DEMAND ANSWERS TO IF I WERE THERE.....
"Mrs. Clinton, how many children will the symptoms of autism did you know growing up in Chicago in the 1950s?"
"Do you believe that there has been a dramatic increase in the autism rate in the United States over the last 25 years? Do you think that autism has an environmental cause?"
"Mrs. Clinton, 10 years ago, the Congress created the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee which was headed by Dr. Thomas Insel until this past year. Their purpose was to develop a 'strategic plan, develop and annually update a summary of advances in ASD research, and monitor federal activities related to ASD.' So far, despite years of supposed effort, IACC hasn't done anything that has helped a single child. Will you call for an end to IACC and the establishment of a committee that will address autism as a health care emergency?"
"When IACC was created, the autism rate was one in every 166 children. Today, it's one in every 45, according to the latest figures from the CDC. Still no health official has ever gone on the record calling autism 'a crisis.' Incredibly, no authority has ever definitely stated that there has been real and dramatic increase in the number of affected children. Instead, they continually remind us with each update in the rate, that no one is sure if THIS increase means more children actually have autism. As president, will you call for research looking for a comparable rate in the adult population?"
"You tweeted, '...vaccines work. Let's protect all our kids.' The issue for parents isn't efficacy; it's safety. Do you see any problem with a system where the agency that approves, recommends, and vigorously promotes vaccines, is also in charge of vaccine safety? Are you concerned at all about the revolving door between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and industry they oversee? Are you comfortable with all the money ties between the CDC and pharma? Would you insist on truly INDEPENDENT vaccine safety research instead of the industry-controlled studies we currently have?"
"Will you call for an independent investigation of the charges made by a CDC scientist that his agency covered up research results showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism and that these fraudulent findings were used by the Federal Court of Claims to dismiss 5,000 claims of vaccine-induced autism?"
"Will you call for an investigation of findings announced in 2011 showing that the government has compensated over 80 cases of vaccine-induced autism at the same time health officials deny any connections between vaccines and autism?"
"Will you call for reform of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency that literally has oversight over itself?"
"Will you call for a simple comparison study of fully-vaccinated and never-vaccinated children? Parents have been asking for such a study for two decades, yet officials refuse to look into this critical issue. It would be proof that vaccines aren't seriously and negitively affecting children if never-vaccinated kids also had soaring rates of autism, learning problems and a myriad of other health problems. We could finally put this controversy to rest."
HILLARY CLINTON AND EVERY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE NEEDS TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. THEY CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO WALK AWAY FOR THIS.
Anne Dachel, Media
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | January 03, 2016 at 01:42 PM
I'm impressed that there is a whistleblower for the State Department in our midst. I have no such status but I am a resident of California that has pretty much bought into the Democratic Party agenda on every level and I admit I went along with it for many years. Now we have the most heavily taxed state in the union and one of the least free.
Hillary Clinton's response to the question about children getting their vaccines was "is the sky blue, should kids get their vaccines" or something like that. Translated into real action this means children will get their vaccines as long as the sky is blue and we'll put riders into legislation to make sure that happens--don't bother with the letters and calls folks, you don't exist anymore. Since regression after vaccines is probably the main cause of the autism epidemic there will be a continued conspiracy of silence and a shoving under the rug of real science. I think Hillary is also one of those folks for whom "the science is in. PERIOD. So shut up" Does she go along with vaccinating Charlotte, her granddaughter. My guess is "yes." Poor Charlotte. Still, if she becomes president and Charlotte is on the spectrum that might be interesting... probably the only interesting thing about another Clinton presidency.
Posted by: kapoore | January 03, 2016 at 12:39 PM
Until Hillary says something to the effect of "the California Democratic Party needs to correct their egregious support of the discriminatory idea that the only children who have the right to a publicly funded education are those whose parents agree to use invasive preventative pharmaceutical products known to adversely affect a certain percentage of the population," she can kiss my a**. Anything short of that is clearly the democratic attempt to convey the impression that they are ready to compete with the Republicans on individual, religious, and parental freedoms. Similar to "greenwashing," but lets call it "freedom washing."
They are looking for the "price" for which a large percentage of the autism community might be bought back. At what point on a vaccine-freedom-advocating, environmentally-aware autism parent's financial spectrum, if they get all their children's wandering, special ed, speech, occupational, socialization, and respite care paid for either or both the child and parent and the government spends the next 35 years generally discussing autism in the context of "environmental influence", does that parent stop talking about vaccine injury and prevention of autism through limiting vaccines in various ways?
Does the net profit the pharmaceutical companies make from government required vaccines exceed the money that might be spent on a government autism-symptom-management/shut-the-parents-up conciliation program?
Posted by: Jenny | January 03, 2016 at 12:03 PM
There are lots of grandmothers and they don't all think the same. It was under the Clinton administration that pharma advertising was de-restricted by government decree, it was under the Clinton administration that the great CDC conspiracy/cover-up was put in place. Hillary was not in office but she has a lot she doesn't want to talk about.
Posted by: John Stone | January 03, 2016 at 08:46 AM
What's in it for Hillary? She just wants to be the first woman president of the USA. Please understand her priorities and decide if they are yours. Unfortunately she is a crook. I should know. I was a whistleblower at the State Department when she was Sec State.
Posted by: Dorie Southern | January 03, 2016 at 08:40 AM
Cathy, I hope you and Kennedy can have her ear.
Posted by: Dan E. Burns | January 03, 2016 at 07:36 AM