Skip to content

>Which is it? "Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic" or "a blog"?

November 30, 2009

>**Updated at the bottom of the post (6:00 pm)**

Busy day over at AoA as even some of its loyal readers take it to task, so I figure this warrants its own post as Blaxill works to defend AoA’s actions.

Here’s his comment and my rebuttal/commentary on it:

“The response this has gotten is certainly interesting.”

Ya think? Whether you thought ya’ll were being swiftian or not, your implication is that these people are babykillers. Here’s the problem, though. You’re arguing that vaccines cause autism, not that it kills babies.

“And while I have a certain sympathy for those who argue against ad hominem attacks (we need less name-calling and a more civil discourse on all the issues surrounding autism), I think we all need to recognize this is a CARTOON.”

Sort of like how folks say something outrageous and then go “just kidding”? No dice. You actually have the temerity to say that “we need less name-calling and a more civil discourse on all the issues surrounding autism” but calling or inferring that public officials, private citizens, doctors and reporters are baby-killers is civil discourse? Just kidding. No harm no foul. Not.

 “And the apt metaphor on the table (pun intended), is that while the medical industry feasts off its excesses, pays off scientists for exercises in misdirection and pays toadies in the media for hit jobs on those who dissent, real children’s lives are consumed.”

Okay, so anyone who doesn’t agree with your vaccine-induced hypothesis of autism is being bought off or is a toady? And children with autism have lives that “are consumed”? Are you kidding me? Yup, that’s civil and based on reality.

“For our friends who object, I’m not sure I would have chosen the image of the baby myself, but chill out a bit folks: we’re a blog, for chrissakes; it’s our job to be edgy.”

Which is it? Are you the “Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic” or “a blog”? Huh? Your job to be edgy? I thought your professed goal was to follow the truth wherever it led, not to be edgy. Better rewrite Olmsted’s piece on what AoA was about. I think it’s time for an update. For sure.

 “At the same time, all the faux outrage is more than a bit hypocritical; frankly, anything that makes the wackosphere vibrate with new forms of silliness is fine by me.”

Are your friends faux-outraged? Or just the wackosphere? The picture is bad enough. Really. But Stagliano’s little piece about Snyderman giving Offit a blowjob is every bit as bad as Handley suggesting that Wallace had to be slipped a date rape drug by Offit to write her piece. Wackosphere? Seriously?  That’s the wackosphere. Not folks following the scientific evidence. Not folks busting their asses to make the world a better place for their autistic children and others with disabilities. Not folks seeking out evidence-based treatments and therapies to help our children reach their potential.

“Seriously, though, something horrible is happening to a generation of children and Michael Specter gets a free pass to call us nut jobs and denialists?”

Yes, he does. He absolutely does. Because you are. See the above sites where your talking points are coming from. Nice attempt to deflect from the nastiness that you, your “blog,” decided to put out there. Nice job at distorting the facts. Nice job at lying about the science, about the scientists, about the role of vaccines.  Nice job at turning reasonable people into people who would laugh at, celebrate and lampoon this cartoon and Stagliano’s wittiness.

“This is Orwell reincarnate, you can’t make this stuff up.”

What precisely is Orwell reincarnate? Hmm? I’ll grant you that you can’t make up your going over the line. Over the line.

What exactly are AoA’s goals now? Because I don’t see any truth searching. I don’t see helping families. I do lies. Distortions. And selling products. I see ugliness. I see a serious lack of civility. I see a shitload of woo, and some outright crazy. Go look at those sites listed above. Then go read folks like Moffie over at Huff and it will make a great deal of sense as to where she was getting her nonsense.

There is no faux outrage. There is a fulmination of outrage at your organization.

And now Anne Daschel is trying to deflect responsibility for their actions. Nice. No dice. No pass.

At some point, it’s all going to come home to roost. And I guarantee you, our outrage, my outrage as a parent to three beautiful and autistic children, is that you have done tremendous harm to the autistic population, to seeing that disabled individuals receive equal treatment and protection, that they are welcome into the main culture with open arms. For heaven’s sake, you’ve got most mainstream folks and certainly a fair amount of the medical and scientific community thinking that parents of autistic children are completely off their rockers. Thanks a lot, AoA, for all the “great” things you’ve done for autistic people and their families.

You know, you could try an “oops, my bad.”

Or not.

“Tom, we appreciate your loyal readership. This is a cartoon/spoof of the team of people who have either made it their life’s work to make sure our kids go untreated or who have advanced that agenda unabashedly in the mainstream media. I feel no remorse in running it. I think Mark Blaxill’s comment explained our position very well.

I do respect and appreciate your comment. Hope to see you tomorrow. Teresa Conrick has a great post on autism and co-morbidity.

Thanks. Kim”

Now, that’s such complete and utter bunk that it makes your head spin. Equating Offit’s work in debunking the autism-vaccine myth, or the reporters’ work as promoting non-treatment is full of bull. No, what you’ve got here are decent, hard-working people trying to prevent dangerous, untested experimentation on the most vulnerable in our society. It’s really good to know that you have no remorse at AoA. You also have no connection with decency. How about the blowjob comment, huh? Got any remorse for that? I like how you alternate between Stagmom and Managing Editor. Of course, now we know you think you’re just a blog that’s meant to be edgy, not actually a journalistic site that provides NEWS.

  1. November 30, 2009 9:28 pm

    >HERE HERE!! Nice to see that enough people were disgusted for them to try and worm their way around it. Perhaps, now when people read them, they will consider the source.

  2. November 30, 2009 10:29 pm

    >On a more positive note, it's great to have adversaries that are so freakin' inept.

  3. December 1, 2009 12:11 am

    >Just when you think the comments cannot gt any worse…they keep coming…Man, they are clueless to how this portrays them.OH, I forgot…this is about them and not their children….my bad !!

  4. December 1, 2009 12:47 am

    >Ya are such a wit, AutismNewsBeat!Now, here's my contribution ta the mess:'t a whole lot a mention of the kids, ceptin that they has been poisoned! Shewey. Age of fools, for sure.

  5. December 5, 2009 12:38 pm

    >Thelma, you forgot the "nit" in your comment.

  6. December 5, 2009 2:20 pm

    >Now, according to Craig's Law; because someone has been tacky to one of my friend's, I must now take the person to task for his words or I am not a good friend.Of course, it's Craig being tacky. Not so bad in this one, but boy it gets worse on other thread.My failure to stand over these two GROWN men and referree them will indicate to Craig, that I am not his friend, while Ken will simply respect that I understand it's their relationship to manage, not mine, and in no way reflects on our friendship. Right?After all, coming between two men engaged in smack talk has worked so well.

  7. December 5, 2009 2:41 pm

    >Kim, the point is that you are quick to admonish me, but when Kenny does it, you're cool with it. How do you suppose that looks to me, huh?

  8. December 5, 2009 2:59 pm

    >Gosh, I guess I'm going to have to see where he's called you a shithead and other vulgarities. And I'm pretty sure he's never suggested you had someone's genitals in your mouth as you've done this morning. Do you think that sitting here looking at a blog is all I do with my time? You are grown men. Act like it. Use your reason and "simple logic" to argue your points based on facts.Quit assuming that everything is about you.

  9. December 5, 2009 3:09 pm

    >Kenny, why don't you inform Kim of your little homo-erotic comment you made about me concerning Dr. Poling? You know, the one where you mention that my heart fluttered whenever the dashing doctor posted.I've also never said nor implied that he is lying about his son. If you are going to sit there and call me out for insulting him, but allow him to insult me, why should I come here? How do you think that looks from my perspective? Do you think that from my perspective you are being a friend? "Craig, you can't insult anyone, but it's ok if they insult you, or call you a liar….but don't you dare respond in kind."Seems kinda one sided, yes?You didn't answer my earlier question and avoided it entirely. You don't deal with those things you don't want to.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: