Archive | Autism RSS feed for this section

It is free speech, but is it appropriate behavior?

2 Jun

A good friend sent me a link to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, Housewife awarded $110,000 after alleging government infringed on her free speech rights. At first glance I was wondering, why send this to me? Then I read the story:

A Norco housewife whose protests against a group home for the developmentally disabled drew the scrutiny of housing discrimination investigators, has settled a lawsuit alleging the government inquiry infringed on her right to free speech.

Julie Waltz, 64, agreed this month to settle her case in exchange for $110,000 and the promise that the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing will establish a “Julie Waltz First Amendment Policy.”

Yes, Ms. Waltz protested a group home and, it appears, the government acted inappropriately in response. She sued, the government settled, and she got a nice big check. I am a firm believer in the first amendment, even when it is used by people taking positions I abhor.

But–I will also state that every right comes with a responsibility. The Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment, comes with a very serious responsibilities. If I were to exercise my freedom of speech, I would state that Ms. Waltz has acted inappropriately and irresponsibly. She has skirted the laws and victimized the disabled.

Ms. Waltz, as you might imagine, disagrees:

In an interview this week, Waltz said, “I wouldn’t say my speech is offensive, but even if it is, the very speech someone says is offensive is the speech we need to protect.”

Offensive speech is not the only speech we need to protect. Speech by the disadvantaged, the weak, that needs to be protected as well.

After reading the LA Times story, I went through the news archives for stories about Ms. Waltz. What I found was not pretty.

Ms. Waltz has taken on a 6 year campaign against a group home next door to her own home. In 2004, when Ms. Waltz read the mission statement for the then proposed home, she keyed in on two statements. The residents might include people with “physical aggression” and/or “sexual inappropriateness” and “fire setting”.

Armed with this, Ms. Waltz led a neighborhood campaign which sewed fear “rape” and “violence” should the group home be opened. She has continued this campaign long after the home has opened.

Here are clips from a story in 2004, where it is clear that the atmosphere in the neighborhood was decidedly antagonistic:

Gary Durham, whose home on Bluff Street has been for sale for nearly two months, said he doesn’t see a peaceful resolution for the community.

People have been knocking over the mailbox and doing doughnuts on the front lawn of the group home, he said.

“The situation is escalating,” he said. “I don’t think the (group home) residents will ever be safe walking out their front door in this neighborhood. They have no idea what they’ve gotten into here. I just wish I could sell my home and get out of here.”

(for anyone who wonders: “doing donuts” means driving a car in tight circles very fast, tearing up the lawn).

Ms. Waltz showed a lack of compassion for the members of the group home:

“We have the right to be heard,” Waltz said. “No one will help us because they think we’re bigots, but I’m tired of being called a bigot just because I care about my neighborhood.”

Waltz said she’s not bothered that some of the signs that have gone up in the neighborhood are menacing in tone. Some have said, “Freaks get out,” “Rednecks unite” and “Safe living. Relocate.”

“If they feel threatened, they know how we feel,” she said. “If they don’t feel like this is a safe neighborhood for their clients, maybe they shouldn’t open a home here.

The comment appears to this reader to be a major sidestep by Ms. Waltz. Rather that accept responsibility for her actions, she has put the blame on the group home residents.

Another story from that time points to the fear mongering used in the campaign against the group home:

The signs along Broken Arrow Street speak loudly: “Your wife & kids are potential rape victims thanks to the government” and “Do you feel safe? We don’t.”

and

The signs include such slogans as “No more! Liar Group Homes” and “Pedophiles, rapists & molesters all display sexual-inappropriateness.”

Note the clever use of language. “Pedophiles, rapists & molesters all display sexual inappropriateness”. They don’t call the group home members “rapists” or “pedophiles” or “molesters” directly. But who is really fooled as to what the message they are trying to convey is?

From another story in 2004:

At times, the fear has given way to hostility and violence, with unknown vandals throwing bricks through the planned group home’s windows, tearing up the lawn, running over a mailbox and snaking a running garden hose through a roof-top opening, which caused the collapse of a ceiling.

Employees and people delivering appliances to the planned group home have been threatened, and neighbors have hoisted dozens of protest signs – some with such strongly worded slogans as “Those people are violent – goes both ways” and “Freaks get out.”

In 2005, the garage door to the home was vandalized with a swastika and the words “get out now”.

During the night Friday, someone threw eggs at the home and vandalized it with a magic marker, sheriff’s officials said. Last summer, the same home had its lawn and mailbox damaged.

A story from 2007 discusses Ms. Waltz again, this time from the perspective of her free speech rights. Ms. Waltz is shown in that story standing proudly next to the signs on her lawn stating “Sexual Inappropriate Fire Setter Facility” and “I.R.C. Does Place Sex Offenders”. (I.R.C. is the Inland Regional Center, which administers services for the developmentally disabled for the California Department of Developmental Services)

Every right comes with responsibility. Freedom of speech comes with a heavy responsibility. Ms. Waltz is exercising her free speech rights. She is staying within the law by not directly claiming that the women in the group home are “sex offenders” or that they are “fire setters”. Again, the language is carefully chosen. It skirts the law and delivers the message at the same time.

To this reader’s eye, she is acting very irresponsibly in her choice of words. She is, in my view, creating an environment of hostility and fear.

In 2007, residents were still afraid for the market value of their homes. Some were having problems selling their homes:

The same campaign that drove the group home out is driving potential buyers away, said Leslie Anderson, whose own home on Bluff Street has been on the market for weeks.

“The situation over there has gotten out of hand,” Anderson said. “I finally got a tentative offer, but it was withdrawn when they drove down Broken Arrow and saw all the signs.”

Anderson said her real estate agent was verbally accosted by Broken Arrow residents because they didn’t recognize her car.

Ask yourself this: did the neighborhood residents think that the real estate agent was a resident of the group home? Obviously not. Were people put off by the group home or, as the resident put it, the signs?

If there is devaluation of the home prices in that neighborhood, the residents need to shoulder their own share of the responsibility.

Next to her American and Confederate flags, Waltz has plastered the outside of her house with signs protesting the group home.

Flying the Confederate flag is protected by free speech laws. But, let’s face it: the Confederacy was fighting to protect their rights to enslave African Americans. For many in the United States, the Confederate Flag is a form of hate speech. Ms. Waltz does not exactly give herself credibility by flying that flag.

Can the residents really expect to push the group home out? It turns out that this group home was not the first planned for this neighborhood. Another 2004 story discusses how a group home was relocated after the residents’ reaction went as far as vandalism:

The owners of a group home for the mentally disabled have decided not to open in Norco for fear that their clients would suffer abuse from an openly hostile community, company officials said Thursday.

Officials with Marjan Homes Inc. said they no longer feel safe opening a home for four mentally disabled adults on Broken Arrow Street after employees reported being threatened by neighbors and after the vacant facility was twice vandalized, said City Manager Jeff Allred.

Keep that in mind when you read this next clip. This is from the LA Times in 2007, when Ms. Waltz brought her freedom of speech complaint forward:

Over Waltz’s objections, the home received state funds to open in 2005. Waltz said that when her new neighbors arrived, they hurled rocks and obscenities at her. She and some neighbors then placed signs in their yards urging the group home to “get out” and warned neighbors that “your wife and kids are potential rape victims” — driving the residents inside to tears, according to their advocates.

“She and some neighbors then placed signs…” Ms. Waltz makes it seem like it was only after the group home was opened and the members acted inappropriately that the protests started. She conveniently leaves out the vandalism and hatred that kept one home from opening. She conveniently leaves out the actions of her neighborhood–intimidation and vandalism–before the present group home opened.

There are good, honorable people who have fought to protect the freedom of speech in the United States. Julie Waltz, proud of her victory, is not one of those people.

Blocking immunisation

2 Jun

The rise of a public anti-vaccine movement in the US is partly to blame for blocking effective immunisations according to the AAP today.

A story on WebMD says that the

…rise of a public anti-vaccination movement that uses the Internet as well as standard media outlets to promote its position, which is “wholly unsupported by any scientific evidence” linking vaccines with autism and other childhood conditions.

is at least partly to blame for ensuring that ‘pockets’ of unimmunised children exist throughout the US. Other reasons given include problems with cost.

Read the whole story at Web MD (@WebMd).

AutismOne Generation Rescue conference expells registered attendees

2 Jun

Autism News Beat has this story in full in Listening to parents at AutismOne. AutismOne is a parent convention with a major focus on alternative medicine. To put them in perspective, Jenny McCarthy is a frequent keynote speaker and Andrew Wakefield was honored by AutismOne last year after it was revealed that his study was possibly tainted by misreporting of results.

If you recall, AutismNewsBeat was expelled from a previous AutismOne conference. He had just asked, respectfully, an important question of Hannah Poling’s mother (Hannah Poling is the child whose case before the vaccine court was conceded on the basis of vaccines aggravating an underlying mitochondrial disorder). To my knowledge, AutismNewsBeat has no been given a clear reason for the expulsion.

A filmmaker/Journalist was present at this year’s AutismOne. Lars Ullberg had applied for press credentials and was denied. AutismOne responded to this request stating:

Autism One is not prepared to offer press passes to you or your crew. Although you and each of your crew members may pay the registration fee as regular attendees, subject to the usual terms of attendance, neither you nor your crew members are permitted to conduct any videography, photography, audio recording, or press interviews; furthermore neither you nor your crew members are permitted to quote attendees, presenters, exhibitors, volunteers, or staff in any manner that will be quoted, “on the record,” or used for public or private media or instructional purposes. Additionally, you and your crew members must identify yourselves accurately with your affiliations to those to whom you speak and also not mislead them to think that you are simply seeking information with which to help your child. Finally, you may not eavesdrop on private conversations between attendees. In summary, Autism One grants no permission to you or your crew to report on this conference or its attendees. Should we become aware that you are not following these guidelines, we will not hesitate to ask you to leave the conference.

AutismNewsBeat asked AutismOne for details on why Mr. Ullberg was removed from the conference, but he has yet to receive a response.

I find the wording and possible intent of this sentence rather odd: ” Autism One grants no permission to you or your crew to report on this conference or its attendees”. If an attendee chose to be interviewed, would that not be OK? The conference appears to be speaking for its attendees.

In addition, a public health official was in attendance for this year’s AutismOne conference. This person also was asked to leave. According to AutismNewsBeat:

A staff member of a western state department of public health was reportedly attending a session on vaccines and parental rights. According to one source, the speaker was advising parents how to apply for and receive vaccine exemptions. The session was interrupted by an AutismOne organizer who commandeered a microphone to announce that a state health department staff member was present, so parents should be careful about what was discussed.

A short time later four Westin O’Hare security guards entered the room, identified the staffer, and directed her to leave the conference facility.

Perhaps in the case of the journalist, AutismOne was afraid of bad press. But haven’t parent groups been asking for some time for people to listen to them? A public health official attends the conference in order to listen and is expelled.

Generation Rescue and Autism One appear to be working in a very defensive, entrenched mode. Internet chatter is mentioning closed sessions where Andrew Wakefield spoke. Closed sessions? Expelling journalists? Refusing permission for journalists to report on what attendees have to say–even if the journalist clearly identifies himself? Asking public health officials to leave for no apparent reason? Again, this comes across to me as an entrenched, defensive mindset.

Andrew Wakefield – as succesful an author as researcher

2 Jun

Andrew Wakefields supporters were hoping his new book would be a bestseller. That ain’t going to happen given how much a publishing insider revealed to me how many he has actually sold:

He sold a total of 1017 copies. Top sales 157 copies in NYC. 46 in LA, 43 in Atlanta (perhaps CDC people wanted to see what he said?!), 38 in Boston, 24 in Chicago, 18 in Seatlle and 17 copies in his hometown of Austin

Ouch. It’ll be interesting to see how well the book does as interest in it fades. Or maybe ‘well’ isn’t the right word.

Another Wakefield paper retracted

1 Jun

Following the retraction by The Lancet of Mr. Wakefield’s “landmark” 1998 paper, many speculated as to if and when other retractions would follow.

The patient pool Mr. Wakefield relied upon for his study was very biased by the referral process. Also, Mr. Wakefield’s team was working without ethical approval for many of the children studied. The natural question to follow is not if The Lancet should retract, but how many papers by Mr. Wakefield’s team were also tainted and should be retracted.

The American Journal of Gastroenterology has retracted a paper from 2000 by Mr. Wakefield’s team: Enterocolitis in Children With Developmental Disorders.

Here is the notice:

Retraction: Enterocolitis in Children With Developmental Disorders

A J Wakefield, A Anthony, S H Murch, M Thomson, S M Montgomery, S Davies, J J O’Leary, M Berelowitz and J A Walker-Smith

Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95:2285–2295

On 28 January 2010, the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practice Panel raised concerns about a paper published in the Lancet by Dr Wakefield et al. (1). The main issues were that the patient sample collected was likely to be biased and that the statement in the paper, that the study had local ethics committee approval, was false. There was also the possibility of a serious conflict of interest in the interpretation of the data. The Lancet has now retracted this paper (1). This paper in the American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) (2) also includes the 12 patients in the original Lancet article and therefore we retract this AJG paper from the public record.

Science based autism charities?

1 Jun

Science Based Medicine is a blog devoted to, well, discussing science based medicine. The subject of autism comes up fairly regularly, usually in the context of the vaccine/autism discussion. A recent SBM piece by Dr. David Gorski, Nine differences between “us and them,” nine straw men burning, caught my eye.

Dr. Gorski comments:

Alison Singer (@alisonsinger), President of the Autism Science Foundation, arguably the only truly science-based autism charity in existence at the moment,

I was about to write a comment when I decided that a blog post was more in order.

The Autism Science Foundation is a science-based autism charity. But, is it really arguable that there are no other truly science-based autism charities?

The answer (as you can likely guess) is “no”. Two names come to mind readily, but I don’t suggest this is an exhaustive list.

[Correction–it has been pointed out to me that both the foundations below do not accept public donations. Thus, they are not “charities”. That would leave the Autism Science Foundation as the one major science based charity]

Who is the largest autism charity? A lot depends on how you define size, but let’s just consider money. Who has the most and who spends the most? If you are thinking Autism Speaks, you are incorrect. The answer is the Simons Foundation.

The Simons Foundation has two main focuses, Math&Science and Autism. They run one of the better blogs on autism science. One of the recent members added to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee is from Simons. Most of the autism charities you might know of are working on the basis of taking money in and turning around and spending that money. That is part of the reason why you know about them, they have to keep their name in the public’s eye to get donations. Simons works from an endowment, a foundation. A big one. As of 2008, Simons had assets worth over US$1 billion ($1.108B if you want details). From this endowment, they fund research. After the U.S. Government, they are likely the largest source of autism research funding in the world.

If you check the Simons Foundation website and blog, you will see a decidedly science oriented organization.

The Nancy Laurie Marks Foundation also supports a number of science projects, as well as some advocacy efforts. The Nancy Laurie Marks Foundation was working from an endowment of nearly $US90 million in 2008.

I will highlight two paragraphs from the Marks Foundation “about” page:

The principal goal of the scientific program is to achieve a deeper understanding of the biological basis of autism, focusing on genetics, synaptic chemistry, the neurobiology of communication, systems biology and the physiology of movement. The Foundation funds peer-reviewed research, the development of collaborative investigator projects, and research fellowship programs. Through sponsorship of scientific conferences, symposia and workshops, the Foundation seeks to encourage innovation and provide a springboard to generate new avenues of shared inquiry.

and

The NLM Family Foundation actively seeks partnerships with other grantmakers sharing its goals and fosters collaborations between investigators and organizations that have a direct interest in developmental disabilities. Of particular interest are projects which challenge stereotypes that stand in the way of people with autism realizing their potential, such as the misconception that people with autism are invariably mentally retarded and have minimal interest in social interaction. Challenging such stereotypes will lead to a greater public understanding of autism and widen the scope of scientific inquiry.

The Nancy Laurie Marks Foundation recently donated US$29 million to Massachusetts General Hospital to start a program focusing on the needs of autistic adults.

I am regularly taken to task on this blog for focusing too much attention on issues which are ever increasingly less relevant to the autism communities. I think Dr. Gorski’s comment is not a failure on his part, but, rather, on mine. While I have discussed both the Simons and Marks foundations, it is well worth the time to discuss them again. Any real change privately funded research may bring to the lives of autistics will come from groups such as these.

Autism and mental retardation – genetic overlap

30 May

Post taken from Medical News Today

Researchers working with Professor Gudrun Rappold, Director of the Department of Molecular Human Genetics at Heidelberg University Hospital, have discovered previously unknown mutations in autistic and mentally impaired patients in what is known as the SHANK2 gene, a gene that is partially responsible for linking nerve cells. However, a single gene mutation is not always enough to trigger the illness. In some cases, a certain threshold of mutation must be exceeded. The researchers conclude from their results that a correct inner structure of the nerve cell synapses is necessary to enable the normal development of language, social competence, and cognitive capacity. Essential for the success of the project were the studies by the Heidelberg research team with the doctoral student Simone Berkel and collaboration with a Canadian research team headed by Steve Scherer. The study has already been published online in the leading scientific journal Nature Genetics.

Autism is a congenital perception and information-processing disorder of the brain that is often associated with low intelligence, but also with above-average intelligence. The disease is characterized by limited social communication and stereotypical or ritualized behavior. Men are affected much more frequently than women. Autism and mental retardation can occur together but also independently of one another and are determined to a great extent by hereditary factors. Some of the responsible genes have already been identified but the precise genetic mechanisms have not yet been explained.

Genetic makeup of hundreds of patients analyzed

Professor Rappold and her team focused their studies on the SHANK2 gene, which encodes a structural protein at the nerve cell synapses. It is responsible for the mesh structure of the basic substance in the postsynapse. Only when the postsynapse is properly structured can nerve impulses be correctly transmitted. The researchers analyzed the genetic material of a total of 396 patients with autism and 184 patients with mental retardation. They found different mutations in their SHANK2 genes in the area of individual base pairs, but also variants in the number of gene copies. The mutations led to varying degrees of symptoms. None of the observed gene variants occurred in healthy control persons. “Apparently an intact postsynaptic structure is especially important for the development of cognitive functions, language, and social competence,” explained Professor Rappold.

Identical mutations as the cause of different diseases

Some of the genetic mutations identified were new occurrences of mutations that were not inherited from the parents, but some of the mutations were also found in one parent. Since there are also healthy carriers of gene variants, we must assume that a certain threshold of gene mutations must be exceeded for the disease to appear. “Moreover, the same mutation can be present in an autistic patient with normal intelligence and in a mentally impaired patient,” said Professor Rappold. There is some overlap in the clinical symptoms of mental retardation and autism, which can now be explained by a common genetic cause.

Polls show vaccine refusers are mainstream?

29 May

This is the claim put forth in a recent “vaccine choice” rally. You’ve probably already read about the rally in Kev’s piece The American Rally for Personal Rights – bit of a damp squib. In his piece on the rally, Is the anti-vaccine movement fizzling?, Orac has videos courtesy of Bruce Critelliplus.

The rally started out with (amongst other statement) a statement from the conference organizers pointing to a survey they commissioned:

“We are mainstream America! And there’s no denying it. We have some important and special news to announce that was shared earlier this week in a press conference. Three weeks ago the center for personal rights contracted with Harris Interactive to conduct a national survey, the first of its kind…..

And here are the results:

Today, the majority of American Parents believe that they should have the rights to decide which vaccines their children should receive without regard to mandates

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=12082474&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1

Chicago AntiVax Rally May 26 2010-Part 1 from Bruce Critelli on Vimeo.

If you’ve read this blog much before, you probably know I like to look at the numbers. So I checked the poll.

Here’s the first question:

All children should receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines before age 18, as recommended by the federal government.

Wow. All children? The Federal government does not recommend that all children get vaccines, in any number. The federal government acknowledges that some children are unable to be vaccinated due to medical conditions.

So, I would have disagreed with question one. Strongly. Does that mean that I agree with the center for personal choice? Hardly.

How many people did agree with question 1? 42%. Another 39% were neutral. I put it that the majority of people polled (and whoever wrote that question) do not understand the vaccine program.

Kind of makes it hard to take the rest of the poll seriously.

But, I like to look at trends. One trend I keep being told is valid is that vaccine refusers tend to be more educated and more well off financially. Basically, smart successful people tend to question vaccines, with the implication that this means the idea has merit.

The poll doesn’t bear this out.

Take question 2, the Government Mandate question quoted in the rally:

“Parents should have the right to decide which vaccines their children receive without government mandates.”

Parents with a high school education or less were in favor 51% of the time

Parents with a college education were in favor 57% of the time

Parents with grad school education? 48% of the time. Still high, but isn’t that interesting. Grad school educated parents were about 10 points less favorable to the idea than college educated parents.

How about income levels?

Parents with $75K annual income were in favor 48% of the time. Still high, but isn’t that interesting. High income parents were about 10 points less favorable to the idea than middle class families.

The income trend–where the high income parents were much less favorable than the middle income families–was the case for 4 of 5 questions:

Parents should have the right to decide which vaccines their children receive without government mandates.

I am concerned about serious adverse effects of vaccines.

The government should fund an independent scientific study of fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals to assess long-term health outcomes.

I am concerned that the pharmaceutical industry has undue influence over government vaccine mandates.

Frankly, I’d probably be counted as supporting the ideas of the self-styled vaccine choice movement based on careful wording of surveys. Doesn’t mean I actually support those organizations.

As an aside, the effort to rebuild Dr. Wakefield’s image is on. It’s just really weak. Dan Olmsted blogged about it at the Age of Autism blog. It is a rather odd piece. First, Dan Olmsted, regular at the Autism One conference (this rally was basically a satellite to that conference), didn’t attend the rally. Nor did any of the principle AoA bloggers. Mr. Olmsted finishes his piece with a statement about how autism was invented in America with thimerosal….How that supposedly supports Mr. Wakefield and his MMR hypothesis, I am unable to ascertain.

Mr. Wakefield’s book came out this week. You can read a good review of it here, Andrew Wakefield Fights Back, and save yourself the time and money of buying the book. Mr. Wakefield’s supporters have targeted Amazon.com to boost the ratings of the book, pushing it to something under 20 in the new books bestsellers list. At the same time, Barns and Noble had the book at about 28,000. In other words, don’t expect it to be on any real best seller lists soon. They are just manipulating a rather useless number.

Age of Autism called for a rally to support Mr. Wakefield following his appearance on the Today Show. There is no followup, no pictures and the post calling for the rally is rather uncluttered by comments from people claiming to have attended. Not even a comment from David Kirby, a short subway ride away. I really wish I had been there with a camera to see if there was any turnout at all.

On short notice, skeptics were able to rally more people to attend the “vaccination choice” rally in Chicago.

Yes, a fair fraction of the roughly 200 people who attended the rally were there as a protest. The rally, timed to coincide with the AutismOne conference, pulled only a small fraction of the AutOne attendees.

Are these groups “mainstream”? Do they represent the real thoughts of the people? I rather think not.

There’s been a bit of a blogstorm this week on Andrew Wakefield. I’m sure he will pop up from time to time in the future, but, let’s face it: He’s old news. He’s been telling everyone who will listen that “he’s not going away”. Doesn’t mean he’s still relevant.

Death better than autism says Andrew Wakefield

28 May

When I first got involved in this, 15 years ago, I got a call from a parent in the North of England who said ‘Dr Wakefield please do not judge me harshly but when I die I’m taking my child with me, because I’m the only one who loves him’ and I didn’t judge that mother at all. In fact I was moved by the love of a mother must have for her child to take his life rather than him fall upon a society that really didn’t give a damn.

http://vimeo.com/12079650 from 2:30 to 3:25.

Those who are regular readers of LBRB may guess how I felt upon hearing such words coming from a man who swore as a doctor to do no harm. If nothing else, they confirm exactly the type of human being Andrew Wakefield is. I also note he waited until _after_ the GMC hearings before expressing such an extreme viewpoint.

I believe that death is not better than autism. Part of the reason LB/RB exists and continues to exist is to counter the idea that autistic people are second hand citizens who can be done away with because of false ideas that they are ‘inconvenient’. There are no reasons based in any morality that it is ever OK to kill another human being. The fact that the other human being might be autistic is irrelevant.

I was already disgusted and appalled at the money grabbing callousness of Andrew Wakefield. Now I find myself more than anything, relieved that the GMC acted as they did and that he has no more access to children in the UK.

The American Rally for Personal Rights – bit of a damp squib

27 May

Yesterday was the American Rally for Personal Rights (an anti-vaccine rally) held between 3pm and 5pm in a park in Chicago, US. In attendance was ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield in whose honour the rally was held.

Hoping for thousands, the organisers got what looks like a hundred or so (click for full size).

including one young man (A certain J. Crosby, Age of Autism Editor) who carried the sign ‘Autistics for Wakefield’

I’m not entirely certain who the autistics were. I mean I see Jake but no one else. Also in attendance were Wade Rankin, Erik Nanstiel, Boyd Haley, Bob Krakow and Jim Moody and for ‘name’ anti-vaxxers that was it. No Jenny McCarthy, No Jim Carrey, No Generation Rescue, No Age of Autism bigwigs (aside from young master Crosby of course).

Of course for bloggers such as I, this is a tad disappointing. There’s not really a lot to talk about when nothing much happens, nobody of any consequence shows up and the whole thing resembles a rain-soaked firecracker.

On the bright side, there were The Refusers who I’m pretty sure would’ve been good for a very hearty laugh. Aside from that – nothing really to tell. The sun was out, some anti-vaxxers waved a few signs around and the world collectively yawned.

See ANB’s take on it, he actually attended the rally himself.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →