AN OPEN LETTER TO ADVERTISERS ON “SAVAGE NATION”

To:
Radio Shack
Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch, Inc.)
Home Depot
AFLAC

It is my understanding that your company advertises, on either a national or local basis, on the radio show hosted by Michael Savage. As you have probably heard by now, Mr. Savage recently commented on the growing epidemic of autism in terms that go beyond ignorance and offensiveness. The transcript of his diatribe reveals that he maintains that “[i]n 99% of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out.” According to Mr. Savage, we can solve this worldwide health crisis by simply telling our children to quit acting like “morons,” “putzes,” or idiots.

As the father of a child who has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum, I can assure you that the problems my family and hundreds of thousand other families face are very real. Rhetoric like Mr. Savage’s makes our lives that much more difficult by spreading irresponsible notions about the challenges we face every day.

Mr. Savage’s recent explanation that he was merely trying “to boldly awaken parents and children to the medical community’s attempt to label too many children or adults as ‘autistic’ ” does nothing to remove the sting from his words. His explanation is nothing short of inane. Moreover, his stated intention to open his show up to those who disagree with him is a hollow gesture. As was reported in the New York Times, Mr. Savage prefers to stand by his remarks and has no intention of apologizing.

Indeed, an apology from Michael Savage would be empty, as it would undoubtedly result from pressure brought to bear by his sponsors or affiliate stations. I am not suggesting that you bring that kind of pressure. Instead, I am suggesting that you do the right thing and follow the example of Home Depot and AFLAC, both of whom have indicated they will pull all advertising from Michael Savage’s show.

I understand that some have indicated that they do not advertise on the show, but I also understand that Radio Shack, Budweiser, Home Depot, and AFLAC all carried ads on his show today, at least in some markets. Without doubt, pulling advertising may take more than one day. But be aware that you will be judged by more than promises. It is not enough to stop advertising on a national basis, and close your eyes to what goes on at individual affiliate stations. Ignoring the problem is exactly what leads to things like Savage’s contemptuous actions. To act in good faith in this matter, you should communicate to all of your advertising agencies that you will not tolerate advertising on that show.

Every consumer has a choice on where to buy hammers and nails, where to get electronic devices, or what beer to drink. Most of us like to feel good about the products and services we spend our money on, and feeling good about the providers of those products and services is a large part of that.

Too many consumers now know the reality of autism that Michael Savage would deny. (As some of us say, we are everywhere, and we’re not going away any time soon.) Many of us have been your customers; many of us have felt good about being your customers. We ask that you keep us in mind as you make your corporate decision on whether you really wan to have your name associated with that of Michael Savage.

Wade Rankin
http://injectingsense.blogspot.com

UPDATE: POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM RADIO SHACK

I received the following response from Radio Shack. Although it was also left in part as a comment, I thought it important to put it here as an update in its entirety. It is a thoughtful response, showing that Radio Shack wishes to be a good corporate citizen.

Thank you for your email to RadioShack’s Media Relations Department. We appreciate and share your concerns.

We would like to emphatically state RadioShack was not and is not a sponsor of the Michael Savage radio show. In fact, our agreement with the radio network airing his show specifically excludes his program (along with several others) as one on which our commercials may appear. The fact that one or more of our ads did run on the July 16 broadcast of this show was in direct violation of our advertising contract with the network. The network has admitted their mistake to us and apologized for the confusion they have created. Likewise, we are investigating whether any other radio stations who air the syndicated version of the program may have violated our advertising contracts and instructions. If so, we will demand a proper remedy.

Unfortunately, the network’s mistake was heard by many individuals such as you who have since spread the word that RadioShack sponsors this program. Likewise, Web sites that were quick to post our name as a sponsor without investigating the actual facts have been very slow to correct the record online. Until that happens, we would greatly appreciate your help in spreading the facts through your own personal network.

Once again, thank you for writing and allowing us the opportunity to set the record straight.

Sincerely,

Charles Hodges
Director Media Relations

BEYOND IGNORANCE; BEYOND OFFENSIVE

Until recently I was blissfully unaware that there was an infestation of the airwaves known as Michael Savage. Apparently his radio show is widely syndicated, and he recently addressed the autism epidemic:

SAVAGE: Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I’m not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. For a long while, we were hearing that every minority child had asthma. Why did they sudden ⎯ why was there an asthma epidemic amongst minority children? Because I’ll tell you why: The children got extra welfare if they were disabled, and they got extra help in school. It was a money racket. Everyone went in and was told [fake cough], “When the nurse looks at you, you go [fake cough], ‘I don’t know, the dust got me.’ ” See, everyone had asthma from the minority community. That was number one.
Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is.
What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, “Don’t act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.”
Autism ⎯ everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, “Don’t behave like a fool.” The worst thing he said ⎯ “Don't behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot. Don’t act like a girl. Don’t cry.” That’s what I was raised with. That's what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You’re turning your son into a girl, and you’re turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That’s why we have the politicians we have.

Mr. Savage apparently didn’t take his father’s advice. He’s behaving like a fool. Mr. Savage is an idiot. No, that gives idiots everywhere a bad name. There really is not a good adjective to describe him. Does he really think that families all over the world are going through this for all the perks that come with having an autistic child? Does he really think that the stimming, the sensory problems, the communication problems, the gut issues, and the rest of the laundry list of symptoms you can add in here are voluntary?

Mr. Savage, stop acting like a putz!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to find out if one of my local radio stations carries this A-Hole’s show. If so, I’ve got to make sure the buttons in my car radio don’t include that station.

UPDATE:

NAA has asked for an apology and retraction from Savage, as well as time on his show to educate this buffoon.  It's a nice thought, but I won't hold my breath.

SECOND UPDATE:
The response to this post has been overwhelming, albeit not surprising. Thanks to all. For my open letter to Savage's advertisers, see the next post.

GINGER'S SNARKY AND ANNOYED . . . AND RIGHT!

The Rankins are on vacation, but I've been trying to keep up with my favorite blogs while we're gone. My pal, Ginger, posted what amounts to an open letter to Julie Gerberding, and she's snarky and annoyed. I'm right there with 'ya G.

DEATH BY IGNORANCE

This is just wrong. We all struggle with schools, trying to educate the educators so that our children can get the most out of their time in the classroom. But we never expect we have to teach them how to avoid killing our children.

It's just wrong.

THE HYPOCRISY OF SOME

In my last post, I touched on one of the many things I’ve found to criticize in Paul Offit and his ilk:

. . . using scare tactics and misrepresenting his opponent’s position is what Paul Offit does best. He is finally acknowledging that the debate is broader than just the MMR or just thimerosal. But he does so by sneering about “shifting hypotheses.” Maybe I’m just a layman when it comes to science, but I thought the entire idea was to keep exploring until you find the truth. What we seem to be finding is that neither the MMR hypothesis nor the thimerosal hypothesis were wrong per se, but neither were right in an of themselves. Both appear to be part of a broader process that we are only starting to understand. Understanding the problem, however, may not be in Paul Offit’s interest.

My criticism on that point is not restricted to Dr. Offit. It seems that a running theme we hear all the time is about “shifting hypotheses” and “moving goalposts.” I find it astounding that the ones who scream the loudest about adhering to good scientific principles are so quick to suggest that scientific knowledge is static, and that we should not change the focus of our inquiry.

We were not wrong to ⎯ and are not wrong ⎯ to demand full inquiry into the potential roles that thimerosal-containing vaccinations and live-virus vaccinations play in triggering ASD. The only mistake anyone made was focusing in on those problems in isolation of the broader questions of the interaction of all of the vaccinations our kids get, and of environmental issues in general. That we now recognize the need to look at those issues does not indicate that we were ever wrong.

Those who mock our willingness to re-examine our direction are clearly attempting to create the impression that we are hypocrites for not sticking blindly to ideas that were simply too narrow (albeit true). But who are the hypocrites?

J.B. Handley recently wrote a post on this subject at Age of Autism, entitled “Goalposts.” It’s a great rejoinder to our critics, and J.B. spends a little time giving a brief history of the “scientific” hypocrisy of those who would deny the problem. It’s a good read.

And lest I forget, Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there who make the extra effort to be involved in their autistic children’s lives, who work with their children on a daily basis to help them get through a not-always-so-kind world, and who never stop fighting for all of our children.

WHY IS ANYONE TAKING THIS GUY SERIOUSLY?

Before I joined the corporate world, I spent many years as a litigator. One of my most frustrating experiences in the courtroom came when a judge (who was well past his prime) allowed the other side’s expert testify in technical areas well beyond his expertise. I have much the same reaction whenever I hear Paul Offit speak.

Dr. Offit, of course, is a specialist in infectious diseases. My understanding is that he does not have a private practice. Indeed, he would have almost no time for it. He spends his time working on the development of new vaccines, acting as a spokesman for the vaccine industry, writing books, and generally holding himself out as an expert in a variety of fields regardless of any expertise he may have in those fields.

Reportedly, he is presently at work on a book about autism, although I doubt he has ever treated a single patient for autism. And without really understanding what autism is, does he really have the qualifications to expound on what may trigger ASD?

Of course, Doc O has never let a little thing like lack of qualifications stop him before. It is his repeated pronouncements on the deficiency of the American legal system ⎯ an area I know a little about ⎯ that drives me crazy.

Doc O recently presented at a teleconference for pediatricians sponsored by the Pennsylvania Immunization Education Program. It’s now available on-line. The subject was how to reassure parents that they should continue to rigidly adhere to the official vaccine schedule in the post-Poling era.

Although he spent time discussing his opinions on the theoretical dangers of the number of vaccines (or in Offit’s opinion, the absence of any potential danger at all), most of the presentation was devoted to a hysterical rant about the manner in which the legal system deals with cases alleging vaccine damage.

Keep in mind that Doc O was speaking as an expert in public policy and the legal system, yet he insisted on parading his ignorance of that system by continually referring to the “decision” made by “the court” in the Poling matter. There was no decision by the court; there was a concession by the attorneys representing the government (i.e., the defense), which has paved the way for the Poling family to recover damages (an award has not yet been determined). Offit repeated that mischaracterization of what happened several times, to the point of specifically criticizing the special masters (attorneys appointed by the Court of Claims to hear the matter in much the same way as a judge does and to make findings of fact). Finally, when the floor was opened for questions, one of the doctors listening corrected Doc O, the “expert” brushed aside the distinction as mere “legal language” and pronounced that it was a “decision” because they had to decide to concede. Huh?!?!

Offit’s believes the vaccine compensation system once served a purpose, but has now gone into dangerous turf because the court is having to address claims that do not fit neatly into the vaccine compensation injury table. Parenthetically, I have to admit to getting the giggles when I heard Doc O extol the virtues of the table, which in his own words, “includes injuries, which clearly have been shown either biologically or epidemiologically to be caused by vaccines.” In criticizing the hypothesis of a vaccine connection to ASD, Offit has relied almost exclusively on epidemiology, especially since the mounting biological evidence does not support his beliefs.

In any event, Doc O’s thesis is that we shouldn’t have lawyers making medical decisions. Indeed, there is always a danger of empowering courts of law to determine broad scientific or technical issues. Nobody should believe that the issue will be decided simply because a legal decision is made. The only thing that can happen is that the court will attempt (or not, if one remains skeptical) to reach a just decision based on an understanding of the present state of scientific knowledge. The court’s understanding, of course, may be right or wrong.

The answer, though, is not to take the decision-making power away from the courts. That is the answer Paul Offit clearly wants: to take the issue away from courts of law altogether, and hand such cases over to some kind of body run by the mainstream medical community. That solution puts us on the slippery slope of removing the power entrusted by the founding fathers to the judiciary simply because the subject matter is technical.

There is no doubt that the system is a mess. By mandating the filing of claims within a short temporal window, we are seeing the Court of Claims trying to make sense of a scientific question that is far from settled. There s no easy solution. The interests of potential claimants, dealing with a relatively short period of limitations, have to be balanced against the interest of potential defendants (the industry and/or the Vaccine Compensation Fund) in a reasonably certain period in which they must face liability. But Dr. Offit advocates a lack of balance.

The debate as to how we fix the system is legitimate, and it is important. All interested parties deserve to be heard, but having a spokesman like Paul Offit does nothing to foster a reasonable discussion.

Dr. Offit, in addition to apparently not understanding the most fundamental aspects of the legal system (i.e., the difference between advocates and the finders of fact), continually resorts to utilizing the plaintiffs’ bar as a bogeyman to scare the bejeesus out of us all. He’s done it before in his well-accepted (an acceptance I don’t understand) book on the “Cutter Incident,” in which he deconstructs a very bad court decision from a few decades ago, and then waves it around as a cautionary tale while ignoring some very real corrections the courts took upon themselves.

He’s still using the same scare tactics. In the recent presentation to the pediatricians in Pennsylvania, Doc O said one of the dangers of the Poling “decision” is that personal injury lawyers will now be alerted ” to an area that might become “lucrative,” and they’ll take their claims to state courts.

Now, I am not a big fan of the plaintiffs’ bar. I’ve spent my professional life fighting those guys. I think I know pretty well what motivates them, and they’re not going to see a defense concession in a single case as being a green light on the road to riches. Those guys want easier pickings with a lot less waiting time. That’s why the vast majority of plaintiff lawyers who jumped on the bandwagon jumped off a long time ago.

But using scare tactics and misrepresenting his opponent’s position is what Paul Offit does best. He is finally acknowledging that the debate is broader than just the MMR or just thimerosal. But he does so by sneering about “shifting hypotheses.” Maybe I’m just a layman when it comes to science, but I thought the entire idea was to keep exploring until you find the truth. What we seem to be finding is that neither the MMR hypothesis nor the thimerosal hypothesis were wrong per se, but neither were right in an of themselves. Both appear to be part of a broader process that we are only starting to understand. Understanding the problem, however, may not be in Paul Offit’s interest.

My overriding interest in this question is the health and wellbeing of my son. That interest dictates that I constantly reexamine the validity of what I believe the truth to be, so that I may help my child. Paul Offit’s interest in seeing that the status quo is not disturbed seems to be a very curious approach for someone who constantly preaches science and the scientific method. Science, like the law, is not meant to be static. Our understanding must evolve as we continue to learn.

In a casual conversation, a pediatrician once told us that he really didn’t have the time to take a good look at issues like the potential connection between vaccination and the triggering of autism. Rather, he simply adopted the position of the AAP as a default. And that’s the same attitude demonstrated by some of the doctors who asked participated in the recent Pennsylvania teleconference. They wanted to know when they could get a “tear sheet” of talking points. One pediatrician bemoaned having to spend five minutes of uncompensated time whenever she was asked questions about vaccine safety. She said that Offit’s argument s would be convincing to “intelligent parents,” a comment which triggered a sarcastic, “yeah, good luck” from Doc O.

That’s the arrogance of Paul Offit. He refuses to use the words “intelligent” and “parents” in the same sentence. He refuses to acknowledge that lawyers and other laypersons are capable of understanding scientific explanations that come forth in a court of law. He refuses to acknowledge that he may not have a monopoly on “the truth.”

Paul Offit is an expert in the field of infectious diseases. Although one may disagree with his opinions in that field, he certainly deserves a respectful listen when he speaks on issues relating to his specialty. He is woefully ignorant, however, about autism, and he has demonstrated repeatedly a complete lack of understanding about the American legal system (which one would think is a lot easier to understand than infectious diseases). Why is it that he continually speaks as an expert on the issues he is least qualified to address.? Why is anyone taking this guy seriously?

ADDENDUM:

After drafting this post, I found out that Paul Offit will be on a panel for the 2008 US Court of Federal Claims Judicial Conference. The session is entitled “Vaccine Compensation Under the Act: A Mix of Science and Policy?,” and it appears that Offit will be the only physician to participate. Could the conference coordinator not have done better?

THE GATHERING

Yesterday the news media devoted the lion's share of their resources to covering the big news about the Democratic primaries. It was almost as an afterthought that any coverage was given to other stories. One that deserved more attention than it got was a remarkable gathering in Washington: the "Green Our Vaccines" rally.

My friend, Ginger, was there, and has posted some remarkable pictures of some of the participants. Check it out.

Also newly posted is the video below from the rally, which comes from an unusual source: Autism Speaks (or someone associated with them). As did not endorse the rally, nor does it seem to want anything to do with the message that was being proclaimed by Jenny, Jim, and a few thousand of their friends. But they seem willing to at least acknowledge us. Although this video lacks the intimacy of Ginger's pictures, it gives a good sense of what the rally was all about, and for that I would give credit where it is due.



UPDATE:
Here's another video from the rally,this one from Lighthouse Studios, which has been a source of "good stuff" telling our side of the story. This one shows a bit more of Jim Carrey's address to the crowd.

GOIN’ HOME

Last week we missed the annual Autism One conference for the first time in a few years (and by all accounts, it was a memorable conference). Instead, we were back down in New Orleans for a special family gathering. It was the kind of trip that helped provide a little perspective on where we were, where we are, and where we’re going.

It’s always enlightening to get reactions from people who don’t see our Little Rankster on a frequent basis. Those people aren’t privy to the daily struggle of raising an autistic youngster and the efforts to reverse the negative aspects of our son’s ASD. So they don’t see the small daily changes. But boy can they see the big changes that occur over the course of a year; and they did see them.

Then there’s the other side of that coin. Although we do our best to maintain protocols, trips like this mean some degree of interruption in the voo-doo we do-do. Add to that the inevitable gluten infraction, and . . . well, let’s just say we got a good lesson in the value of the biomedical track we’re on.

“Home” can be a nebulous concept. It doesn’t necessarily mean the place you came from. It may not even be a place. This latest trip back to New Orleans reaffirmed for us that no matter how much we love that city ⎯ and no matter how deeply rooted in our souls the city and its culture will always be ⎯ it is not our home anymore.

But even the city we now live in is not “home.” Our home is wherever we are doing the best for our family. Home is where we’ll be on the day when we’ll know that we have done all we can to give our son the best possible opportunity to make the most of his life.

We’re going home.

WHAT YOU DO UNTO THE LEAST OF THESE . . .

A recent article in the Star Tribune, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, speaks to a problem that is far too common: a problem of interest to all families of autistic individuals.

The Race family in St. Cloud, Minnesota attends church services, Mass at the local Catholic parish in their case, as a family. Their family includes 13-year old Adam. Adam is autistic.

In 2005, the Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Cloud presented Carol Race, Adam’s mother, with an award, recognizing:

. . . her efforts to encourage families with disabled children to attend mass, she said. The award cited her “untiring efforts ... to educate and advocate for others who have children with disruptive disabilities such as autism and seek to participate as a total family at Sunday mass.”

What a difference a couple of years makes.

Last summer, their parish priest, the Rev. Daniel Walz, appeared at the Race’s doorstep with a temporary restraining order, intended to keep Adam away from services at the church.
It is beyond ironic that the Church, which adamantly would resist the jurisdiction of civil courts on issues of internal governance, seems to have no problem turning to those same civil courts when trying to add a little oomph to its internal decrees.

Carol Race was, to say the least, perturbed at the lack of understanding on the part of Father Walz:

“He said that we did not discipline our son. He said that our son was physically out of control and a danger to everyone at church,” she said. “I can’t discipline him out of his autism, and I think that’s what our priest is expecting.”

The Race family defied the order, and they are likewise defying a permanent restraining order that was issued. They continue to attend Mass as a family, doing their best to keep Adam’s occasional meltdowns under control. They have asked the Diocese to rescind the order, but the only response was a release described in the Star Tribune article:

A statement released by the Diocese of St. Cloud said the church filed the petition “as a last resort out of a growing concern for the safety of parishioners and other community members due to disruptive and violent behavior on the part of that child.”

“That child,” as the Diocese calls Adam, is as much a child of God as anyone who joins others to worship.

In the article, Rev. Walz describes the nature of the problems Adam’s behavior raises. It also provides the Race’s explanation of those behaviors. The family’s explanation has the ring of truth for anyone who has spent time around an autistic youngster, or who has taken the time to try and understand.

Could Adam’s parents have handled some of the “disturbances” in a better way? Maybe, but I’m not ready to make that call when I don’t know the complete background. One thing is sure, however; taking the Race family to court will not bring anyone ⎯ not the Race family, not the other parishioners, and certainly not Father Walz ⎯ any closer to the Kingdom of Heaven.

THE WILLINGNESS TO CONFRONT UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS

I’ve been on one of my blogging sabbaticals for a while. It’s not that there hasn’t been anything to write about; rather, it’s a matter of other things having higher priority than spouting off my opinions. As could be predicted, it took a condescending comment from Paul Offit to spur me to sit at the keyboard.

In an Associated Press report on the next test case in the Court of Claims, the reporter decided to get a quote from Doc O, the infectious disease guy who holds a vaccine patent and is a consultant for Merck (and, as is usually the case, those parts of his résumé were left out of the article). In an apparent reference to the fact that there is more than one theory being explored, Dr. Offit said: “I think that what’s so endearing to me about the anti-vaccine people is they’re perfectly willing to go from one hypothesis to the next without a backward glance.”

For those who aren’t able to recognize it, that statement is an example of what we call “sarcasm.” And what is he being sarcastic about? It seems that some of us have the temerity to constantly reexamine our opinions in the face of emerging science. I always thought the evolution of an idea lay at the heart of the scientific method, but apparently I was wrong. (Okay, that’s a little sarcasm on my part.)

Dr. Offit chooses to cling to a static concept, without regard to mounting evidence against that concept. It’s simply too uncomfortable for him to challenge his notions.

Contrast Dr. Offit’s smug attitude with the open mind of Dr. Bernadine Healy. Dr. Healy’s about as mainstream as it gets; she’s a former head of the National Institutes of Health and she’s a current member of the Institutes of Medicine. She’s hardly an antivaccine zealot. But in a recent interview with Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, she stated her opinion that the question of a potential link between vaccinations and autism in genetically susceptible individuals is not yet settled and deserves serious study ⎯ study that has not yet been undertaken by the institutions charged with the protection of public health.

According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.

The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer.

Dr. Healy has not formed an opinion that vaccines are definitely a trigger of ASD, or that vaccines are a major contributing factor to the current epidemic. She’s merely saying that there’s enough evidence to warrant a real examination.

As a commentator ⎯ albeit an amateur ⎯ on the issue of autism causation, I must admit that I’ve always found Paul Offit to be . . . well, endearing. Whenever I can’t seem to find anything to write about, Doc O comes to my rescue by saying something that just calls out for a comment. It’s nice, though, to have someone like Dr. Healy, who invites comment of a more flattering nature.

Check out an extended version of the interview with Dr. Healy to hear what a reasonable scientist sounds like.

WILL AUTISM SPEAKS LISTEN TO KATIE WRIGHT?

It’s no secret that I’m not exactly a big fan of Autism Speaks. There is someone who has a more-balanced view of that organization than I have: Katie Wright. It is, of course, ms. Wright’s son’s regression into autism that gave birth to the organization. Her parents, Bob and Suzanne Wright saw a need and created what has quickly become the 900-pound gorilla in the room. The arrogance with which the organization has run roughshod over other organizations, autistic individuals, and just about anyone that doesn’t subscribe to their views has been nothing short of shameful.

Through it all, Katie Wright has remained loyal to her parents, even after they threw her under the bus for making public pronouncements on the issue of vaccines as a potential trigger for ASD. She has always been careful to separate the role of her parents from the influence of other officers and directors of Autism Speaks. I tend to think she underestimates Bob Wright’s influence on the organization’s direction, but she is certainly in a better position to know what’s in her father’s heart.

In a new post at Age of Autism, Ms. Wright again pays tribute to her parents, while calling Autism Speaks to task for ignoring the biomedical community. It’s an articulate statement that deserves to be read. Unfortunately, it probably won’t have an impact on those who really need to understand: the leadership of Autism Speaks.

FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT WE GOT PAST 1984

Courtesy of Ginger Taylor comes a dissection of Julie Gerberding's recent appearance on CNN, which seems to have been intended to reassure us all that the government is doing all it can to clear up the confusion, and that there is no danger. The CDC Director's "answers" were classic examples of Orwellian doublespeak.

I'm not the first to point out that the CDC's search for the cause of the autism epidemic, under Director Gerberding, has demonstrated all of the determination and doggedness of O.J. Simpson's search for "the real killer."

SICKNESS AT HOME AND AT THE CDC

I’m not really up to a full post right now. I’m recovering from a few days of illness: chills, body aches, coughing. And no, I did not get a flu shot this year. Even if I had gotten one, however, it would have done no good. As you are probably aware, the CDC guessed wrong on the strain this year, and the current shot has not been that effective (which I suspect is more common than they admit). Besides, I don’t have the flu; I have flu-like symptoms.

Speaking of the CDC, check out what David Kirby has to say about Julie Gerberding’s reaction to the Polling case. He hits the nail squarely on the head.

Speaking of heads, there’s sickness not just in the Rankin house right now. There’s a real sickness in the CDC, an agency that’s supposed to be protecting our health. In my case, I got better with a few days rest and lots of fluids. The CDC’s sickness, on the other hand, will require drastic surgery: amputation of the head.

ADDENDUM:
Looks like someone else went down with flu-like symptoms. And unlike me, I have to think that he got his flu shot.

IMAGINE

Okay, I realize I’ve been linking to Ginger’s blog a lot lately, but she’s been a lot more active at this than I have, and I rarely find anything to disagree with her about.

She’s just posted The Responsible Government Fantasy in which she imagines the press conference that would result if Julie Gerberding (Director of the Centers for Disease Control) would show an ounce or more of integrity. Ginger sees a kinder, gentler Julie giving a thoughtful reaction to the Poling concession, and actually reaching out to offer parents help.

Of course, it’s just a fantasy. As Ginger notes, “OJ looked harder for Nicole’s ‘real killers’ than Julie has looked for the causes and possible cures of autism.” Still, it’s nice to imagine a country in which the government actually has our best interest at heart.

One thing that’s missing from Ginger’s fantasy is an admission by Gerberding that the CDC, which is charged with the responsibility of promoting the vaccination program, might just have a conflict of interest ⎯ or at the very least a perceived conflict ⎯ with the role of determining vaccine safety. I imagine Julie standing at the podium calling upon Congress to create a separate safety agency, to be led and staffed by physicians with no ties to either the CDC or vaccine manufacturers (okay, that might be drifting a little too far into the realm of science fiction).

I picture Ms. Gerberding specifically calling for research into not just what individual vaccines and vaccine components might be potentially dangerous, but also whether numbers of vaccines and particular combinations of vaccines might pose a risk to our children.

Unfortunately, it’s just a fantasy. But just imagine if it were true.