Re: Fwd: Hillary Clinton - The Thimerosal Queen & The Mother of t...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2008 9:57:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt@... writes:

Insight on the News, Feb 22, 1993 by Elena Neuman

Well, that about says it all. Did you happen to look at the dates?

It's this type of rhetoric that deflates the ability of others to take those of us that believe there is a connection between autism and vaccinations seriously.

1993?

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I saw the dates...!!!! jarkat002@... wrote: In a message dated 3/3/2008 9:57:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt writes: Insight on the News, Feb 22, 1993 by Elena Neuman Well, that about says it all. Did you happen

to look at the dates? It's this type of rhetoric that deflates the ability of others to take those of us that believe there is a connection between autism and vaccinations seriously. 1993? It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

I didn't have a chance to really dig into this but if this goes back to 1993, the point is that there wasn't much said in 1993 on the connection between autism and vacinnes so how would Hillary Clinton have known of it? I think she was trying to make a good effort to help rather than hurt. I have to read and re-read this article before I can say more but if that is the case, I don't know if there was much on the connection back then. I just wanted to get this in as I am pressed for time. I do want to know more and I can't make a judgement either way at this time.

ps. I think it wouldn't be fair to call her a thimerasol queen unless she is going against the connection at this current time when there is so much more written about it. Is she still pushing vacinnations? sorry I haven't the time to dive in and research thoroughly..but I will soon.

Yours, n

In a message dated 3/3/08 9:57:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt@... writes:

Subj:[ ] Fwd: Hillary Clinton - The Thimerosal Queen & The Mother of the Autism Epidemic

Date:3/3/08 9:57:49 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: egerpatt@... ( Pattison)

Sender:

Reply-to:

(autismNE), autism-biomed-ohio (biomedohio), autismbiomedcleveland (autismbiomedcleveland)

OK, here's my contribution to the discussion....forwarding this interesting article from another list. Thanks,

It's Mrs. Clinton's shot at an inoculation cure -

Hillary Rodham Clinton's effort to supply childhood vaccines to

every pre-school child

Insight on the News, Feb 22, 1993 by Elena Neuman

Summary: Bush poured money into getting more preschoolers

vaccinated, but the effort was criticized as meager, and some

experts

question whether greater spending is even the right prescription.

Now

Hillary Clinton will get her turn at a chronic national problem.

In a little-publicized 1991 media event, Arkansas's first lady

blasted the Bush administration for its purported failure to pay for

adequate supplies of childhood vaccines.

"That has always been one of the most inexplicable positions taken

by

the administration over the years," said Hillary Clinton from a

podium she shared with Jocelyn Elders, who has been picked to become

the new surgeon general. "Because if preventative health care is a

positive thing, what better way than through immunization?" She

revisited the subject at a Nov. 18 appearance before the Children's

Defense Fund, the advocacy group she once led. "We owe our children

more than we've been giving them," she declared. "What on earth

could

be more important than making sure that every child has the chance

to

be born healthy, to receive immunizations and health care as that

child grows?"

Now the nation's first lady, appointed by her husband to lead his

planned overhaul of the nation's health care system, Mrs. Clinton is

in a position to follow through on these complaints. And a plan to

federally fund all childhood vaccines will reportedly be the

administration's first health care reform. If childhood immunization

is less than universal because of neglect by penny-pinching

Republicans in the White House, as the Clinton campaign charged,

then

giving children the medical attention they deserve is one campaign

promise that should be easy to fulfill.

According to the most quoted statistics, compiled by UNICEF and the

Children's Defense Fund, the United States ranks 17th in the world -

behind countries like Albania, Poland, Mexico and Pakistan - for the

percentage of 1-year-olds who have been vaccinated against polio.

A Children's Defense Fund survey this past summer found that most

states report preschool vaccination coverage levels below 60

percent;

in cities such as Los Angeles, Houston, Cleveland and Chicago, fewer

than 50 percent of children under age 2 have received shots to

prevent measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping

cough) and other childhood diseases, the report said.

Childhood immunization has been a hot issue since 1989, when it

attracted national media attention because of an outbreak of

measles -

a disease all but wiped out in 1983. Infections of whooping cough

also rose in the late eighties, primarily due to parents forgoing

DTP

(diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) shots for their children after

media reports that the vaccine caused serious adverse reactions,

even

death.

The Bush record on children's health was thus an open target for

liberal criticism. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post less

than a month before the election, commentator Kinsley said

the issue was a touchstone distinguishing Bush voters from Clinton

voters. Describing the problem as an "aspect of the general decline

of national wellbeing that snuck up on us while we were partying in

the 1980s," he laid the blame at the doorstep of "people with no

faith in the power of government to do good." What made him a

Democrat, Kinsley offered, was his feeling that "as a citizen of the

richest country in the world, this is a problem I shouldn't have to

worry about. And I wish we had a president who would take whatever

action, and spend whatever money, is necessarry to solve it."

Katz, a professor of pediatrics at Duke University Medical

Center and the chairman of the Federal Advisory Committee on

Immunization Practices, echoed this analysis in late December and

urged Bill Clinton to be the president Kinsley had wished for. "With

the de-emphasis on federal support originating during the Reagan

years and continuing through the Bush administration, problems have

undermined the nation's mandate to protect its children "he wrote in

a Scripps column. "Childhood vaccination must be a sure bet.

President Bush's health-care promises proved empty. They let down

the

innocent children among us. Let's hope Bill Clinton's medical agenda

puts the nation's future - its children - first and foremost."

Even Hollywood has thrown its weight behind the call for greater

efforts at childhood immunization. In 1991, Spielberg, Kate

Capshaw, Henry Winkler, Bill Cosby and a host of entertainment

executives and producers formed the Children's Action Network, in

association with the American Academy of Pediatrics, to launch a

full-

scale immunization awareness drive.

Despite this seeming unanimity of liberal opinion, however, the

Clintons may have a tough time living up to expectations. The

indictment of the Bush administration for inaction on immunization

left out two stubborn facts: Federal efforts have hardly been

lacking; and the problem is more complicated than it has been

portrayed.

Advocates of a full federal offensive have emphasized the Bush

administration's failure to propose spending as much as Congress

appropriated. Left out is the fact that spending on childhood

preventive medicine may have been the fastest growing federal budget

line in the Bush years - increasing by 250 percent.

Federal spending on immunization in fiscal 1988 was $98 million; in

fiscal 1992 it was $297 million; and for fiscal 1993, which began

Oct. 1, Bush requested $349 million. During those years, funding for

two new vaccines, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type b, plus

a booster shot for measles, mumps and rubella was added to the

budget.

Nor were federal efforts limited to increased funding. In 1991, Bush

directed his top health officials to do a six-month study of six

major urban centers to determine how the national immunization rate

could be improved; upon receiving the panel's suggestions to make

public clinics more user-friendly, he approved an additional $46

million to support vaccine distribution and education, quite apart

from vaccine supply.

Vaccine "one-stop shopping" centers and immunization "express lanes"

were planned for inner cities; plans were drawn up to consolidate

government aid centers with public clinics to make it easier for

poor

parents to have their preschool children immunized at the same time

as and in the same office where they applied for food stamps or

welfare benefits.

These policy moves were "innovative and unusual. An important first

step " says Talbott, executive director of Every Child by Two,

an advocacy organization for children's immunization founded by

former first lady lynn and Betty Bumpers, wife of

Arkansas

Sen. Dale Bumpers. It was the first time since a federal

immunization

grant program was authorized in 1962 that money was allotted for

functions other than the purchase of vaccines, and health care

professionals applauded.

Almost without exception, Democrats on Capitol Hill criticized the

policy, not on its merits but as too little, too late, or as a Band-

Aid approach. "We don't need a six-city road show to study the

problem"' said Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts. "We need a

general federal commitment to see that every child is immunized"

Katz

told the Los Angeles Daily News that Bush had "finked out" on

children.

Now, former Bush health officials profess amazement at the way a

massive budget increase, coupled with policy innovations, was turned

into a political liability. "The notion that there haven't been

enormous increases in public health service funding, distribution

and

services during the Bush administration simply belies the fact of

what's happened - during a time when there was a great deal of

constraint over the general federal spending," says Moley,

former deputy secretary of health and human services.

Moley, like other Bush officials, ridicules the notion that the

international rankings of UNICEF are reliable - that statistics

from,

say, Pakistan or Albania are reported accurately. "After all this

talk, are [the Clinton people] prepared to match the percentage

increases the Bush administration put through in such areas as

immunization for children, Head Start and AIDS? ... I don't know

where they're going to get the money to do this unless they

dramatically increase taxes or the deficit." That may in fact be the

plan. The Children's Defense Fund advocates tripling spending - to

$1

billion - for a universal immunization purchase program in which all

vaccines, for both public clinics and private physicians, would be

federally funded.

Given Mrs. Clinton's close ties to the organization, it's not

surprising that the idea is being seriously considered. And although

the Clinton administration says it has not quite figured out how to

pay for the expensive federal program, higher taxes would in fact be

consistent with a campaign speech that Clinton delivered to a

convention of the American Association of Retired Persons in June in

San , Texas. He said he planned to raise taxes on people

making more than $200,000 to pay for specific programs - among them

prenatal health care and immunization for all preschoolers.

The problem is that with all the money that has been poured into the

immunization program in the past four years and with the

restructuring of the program, there has not been a corresponding

improvement in rates at which preschoolers get their shots. While

measles has been brought under control, some experts attribute its

demise to the natural run of an epidemiological cycle rather than

any

Public Health Service action.

Some immunization experts insist that to fully immunize the nation's

children, particularly children in poverty, the issue is less one of

how much the federal government is willing to spend than of how

willing the government is to be paternalistic when parents are

irresponsible.

According to Walter Orenstein, director of the department of

immunization at the federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta,

the chief cause of the measles resurgence "was not a problem with

vaccine supply, but a problem with delivery of services and parents'

lack of knowledge about the vaccine schedule."

But when Roper, the Bush-appointed director of the Centers

for Disease Control, suggested in 1991 that parents might share the

blame for vaccination rates, he was denounced as being politically

insensitive. His suggestion was to make welfare checks to mothers

contingent upon immunization of their preschoolers, just as public

school admission has since the 1970s required full vaccination. (It

is for this reason that the immunization rate of schoolage children

is nearly 100 percent.)

"We all know that spending money and having coverage is not the only

problem that we have to deal with, but we're not allowed to say it"'

says Gail Wilensky, former special assistant to Bush for health

care. "We need to get people to engage in more responsible behavior

when it comes to their children. We need to stop pretending that

this

is just a financing health care problem."

Moley says, "You've got crack-addicted mothers trying to survive day

by day whose last thought in the world is getting their children

properly immunized. But God forbid anyone should suggest that

parental irresponsibility and bad behavior are a factor here."

ph Liu, a senior associate and health care specialist at the

Children's Defense Fund, has been one of the most vocal opponents of

this view. To him it's more a matter of parental ignorance (and a

large dose of Republican mishandling) than of irresponsibility.

"You can go to almost any very concerned, very involved parent and

ask them what's the immunization schedule that their child needs

from

birth to age 4, and you won't find single parent out of a hundred

that has the ability to recite that schedule," he says.

In the past, pediatricians kept track of immunizations and informed

parents of when to bring their children in. Today, says Liu, many

families don't have such a relationship with a pediatrician. Parents

just don't know what they're supposed to be doing.

In addition, points out Judith Shea of the National Association of

Community Health Centers, the system of public immunization is too

diffuse. "There isn't a coordinated system throughout the states,"

she says. "The communication among all the entities administering

public vaccines is not as fluid as it should be." Public clinics are

often disorganized, require long waits and the scheduling of

appointments weeks or months in advance, and aren't open at hours

that working parents can manage.

Recent studies also have found clinics to be burdened by an ever-

increasing clientele. A 1991 survey of Dallas-area pediatricians and

family practitioners published in Pediatrics magazine found that

more

than 70 percent referred some of their patients to public clinics

rather than administer the vaccines themselves. And a Milwaukee

study

found that children not covered by health insurance were far more

likely to be sent by their doctors to public clinics. (Only half of

private insurance plans cover the cost of immunization.) Although

there hasn't been a problem with vaccine supply in the clinics, the

increased use has led to longer waits for appointments and in

waiting

rooms.

The rectify these problems, a Bush-appointed group of federal,

state,

local and private organizations developed "Standards for Pediatric

Immunization Practices" based on the recommendations of the Public

Health Service's National Vaccine Advisory Committee.

The standards suggest keeping clinics open during off-hours and

weekends; vaccinating children on a walk-in basis, thereby

eliminating the need for scheduling appointments; forgoing the

requirement of comprehensive physical examinations before

administering vaccines; vaccinating children who come to a clinic

for

services other than a vaccine or who accompany other family members;

and administering in a single visit all vaccinations for which a

child is eligible.

"We're trying to do a better job of making our clinical services

user-

friendly," says Orenstein of the CDC.

"It's very clear that we have to work with the public and private

sector to do this. It isn't simply a matter of just education. It's

an issue of trying to make the services as pleasant as possible, to

reduce clinic waits and to not require appointments all the time."

Sen. Riegle, a Michigan Democrat, is introducing legislation -

the Comprehensive Child Health Immunization Act - that seeks to

implement the standards as a matter of federal law.

Optimism about the new standards is not unanimous, however. Jan

kson, executive director of the National Vaccine Information

Center, says the elimination of comprehensive physicals and the

simultaneous inoculation of siblings would lead to an increase in

adverse reactions to vaccines.

"There are a host of reasons that we shouldn't lessen the

restrictions. We should, in fact, tighten them up," she says. "The

intent of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was to make

vaccines safer, so these standards really fly against Congress's

intent in passing that law, which still now should form the basis of

any federal policy about immunization campaigns."

kson is referring to a law passed in 1986 in response to a

number

of serious neurological reactions and deaths from the whooping cough

vaccine. A slew of lawsuits against the manufacturers of the vaccine

threatened to put them out of business and jeopardized the nation's

vaccine supply. They also sent the prices of most vaccines

skyrocketing. The price of the DTP vaccine, for example, has risen

5,147 percent from its low of 19 cents a dose in 1977 to $9.97 in

1992. The 1986 law partially rectified the crisis by legislating

medical precautions for administering vaccines as well as a publicly

financed vaccine injury compensation fund to eliminate the need for

outside litigation against the companies.

"The at-risk indicators for a vaccine adverse reaction are if there

has been a history in that family among siblings or very close

relatives of having had an adverse reaction," says kson. "So the

recommendation of giving siblings simultaneous vaccinations seems

misguided. Having some sort of sequenced pattern to having siblings

receive vaccinations makes a lot more sense. But really the most

risk

is introduced by not having competent medical professionals do the

exams, the screening and admininistering of the vaccinations.

Doctors

are not well-trained enough to diagnose adverse reactions, and if

doctors aren't well-trained enough, you can certainly imagine that

other persons without the professional training, what their

deficiencies would be in recognizing adverse reactions,"

The National Vaccine Information Center, an advocacy group for

families of children injured by vaccines, has tracked 360 deaths and

17,221 other serious adverse reactions due to vaccinations in the 20

months leading up to July 1992. This, they say, represents only a

fraction of the number of adverse reactions. (The CDC and many

pediatricians and neurologists, on the other hand, question whether

vaccines are the true cause of all these injuries and deaths.)

kson, Orenstein and other immunization professionals further

question the universal vaccine purchase program promoted by the

Children's Defense Fund, the American Association of Pediatrics and

other heath care organizations. While Orenstein concedes that

universal purchase would prevent fragmentation of care while also

stopping the overuse of public clinics by children who are normally

treated by private physicians, he says he wonders whether such an

expensive solution would solve the problem of low vaccination rates

in the inner cities.

"We still will need to improve our health care delivery capacities

in

the inner cities," he says. "We shouldn't think that buying the

vaccines will somehow get a kid in Harlem vaccinated. Moreover, will

vaccine manufacturers drop out of the market as a result of

universal

purchase? That is a potential threat. Will they invest the same

amount of money in research? That is not clear." Vaccine

manufacturers expressed just these concerns upon receiving word of

Clinton's universal purchase plans, and the CDC is currently funding

a study to determine the benefits and risks of universal purchase.

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association,

however, seems to suggest that universal purchase would not solve

the

nation's preschool immunization problem.

The study found that in caring for the uninsured and underinsured,

expanded free or subsidized health care for low-income pregnant

women

was not associated with an improvement in access to prenatal care or

in birth outcomes. Between 1984 and 1987, the study reported, the

rate of Massachusetts women who received prenatal care declined,

even

as public care received increased funding.

"The Clinton people have a lot to learn on this issue, and they've

just been following a very knee-jerk kind of reaction"' says

kson.

"They think that universal immunization is a great thing to do for

children, when in fact it really is a very poor effort at trying to

safeguard children's health."

Immunization of preschoolers may prove to be one of those problems

that everyone - Democrat and Republican alike - would like to solve,

but that can't be solved by money alone.

Bush tried his hand at it for four years. Now it's Clinton's turn.

COPYRIGHT 1993 News World Communications, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

--- End forwarded message ---

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <sentto-10042525-7694-1204599457-DMHelmick7=wmconnect.com@...>

Received: from rly-mb05.mail.aol.com (rly-mb05.mail.aol.com [172.20.118.141]) by air-mb02.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMB24-ea47ccbaa2296; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:57:49 -0500

Received: from n32c.bullet.scd. (n32c.bullet.scd. [66.94.237.10]) by rly-mb05.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMB54-ea47ccbaa2296; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:57:38 -0500

Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam./domainkeys

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=;

b=MbI3AK588Wt3Di/l81tr3Tl7ErATt8tNgErB0imetcVwynQlmHpN1upMMEUBICClu8uDv7rByxwEdEG3Y5Cz4xaGJihlefse9mxy4GBG/P1JayD1ysOAaSwjOCrnHoaE;

Received: from [66.218.69.6] by n32.bullet.scd. with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2008 02:57:38 -0000

Received: from [66.218.66.157] by t6.bullet.scd. with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2008 02:57:38 -0000

X--Newman-Id: 10042525-m7694

X-Sender: egerpatt@...

X-Apparently-

X-Received: (qmail 11596 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2008 02:57:35 -0000

X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.94)

by m53.grp.scd. with QMQP; 4 Mar 2008 02:57:35 -0000

X-Received: from unknown (HELO web52002.mail.re2.) (206.190.49.249)

by mta15.grp.scd. with SMTP; 4 Mar 2008 02:57:35 -0000

X-Received: (qmail 13481 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Mar 2008 02:57:34 -0000

X-YMail-OSG: LRrSGo0VM1lfx9Yi02yKt5OSmFxJoL_hoi.MbK.m_L0Nq0zp8zmqIsU2XZp7ZBqsUQfPrEjaGX46ADwhmlMhgVPCunBHTzi9LRE4pEOUKWj91P_2Ij7a9nGUj0VleLwb1XH9c9evGDQaFdE-

X-Received: from [75.39.91.150] by web52002.mail.re2. via HTTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:57:34 PST

autismNE < >,

biomedohio <autism-biomed-ohio >,

autismbiomedcleveland <autismbiomedcleveland >

Message-ID: <743717.10531.qm@...>

X-Originating-IP: 206.190.49.249

X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0

From: Pattison <egerpatt@...>

X--Profile: egerpatt

Sender:

MIME-Version: 1.0

Mailing-List: list ; contact -owner

Delivered-mailing list

List-Id: < .>

Precedence: bulk

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto: -unsubscribe >

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:57:34 -0800 (PST)

Subject: [ ] Fwd: Hillary Clinton - The Thimerosal Queen & The Mother of the Autism Epidemic

Reply-

X--Newman-Property: groups-email-ff-m

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

boundary="0-1781370598-1204599454=:10531"

X-AOL-IP: 66.94.237.10

X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:2:469453504:9395240

X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 1

X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : n

X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : n

[Guest guest]

Honestly. Whoever is calling her the "Thimerosal Queen" is incredibly stupid and way to "Jerry Springer' to be taken seriously.

If people want others to see that there is a legitimate connection between vaccinations and autism that have to realize that when they sound like nutcases, their opinions hold no value.

I'm tired of the propaganda.

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:17:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt@... writes:

Yeah, I saw the dates...!!!!

So why pass along the propaganda? It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/4/2008 8:17:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt@... writes:

That wasnt the point. If you want to be able to excercise your right to utilize vaccine exemptions, like I do, under Hillary you may not have this option as widely available...

I use the exemptions as well.

This statement simply isn't true "under Hillary you may not have this option as widely available" I'm sorry that you based your vote on propaganda.

the article was ver clear about her position on this and to me was good information that I used myself when voting today.

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

That wasnt the point. If you want to be able to excercise your right to utilize vaccine exemptions, like I do, under Hillary you may not have this option as widely available...the article was ver clear about her position on this and to me was good information that I used myself when voting today. jarkat2002@... wrote: In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:17:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

egerpatt writes: Yeah, I saw the dates...!!!! So why pass along the propaganda? It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

I disagree with you. jarkat2002@... wrote: In a message dated 3/4/2008 8:17:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt writes: That wasnt the point. If you want to be able to excercise your right to utilize vaccine exemptions, like I do, under Hillary you may not have this option as widely

available... I use the exemptions as well. This statement simply isn't true "under Hillary you may not have this option as widely available" I'm sorry that you based your vote on propaganda. the article was ver clear about her position on this and to me was good information that I used myself when voting today. It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2008 1:09:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jowca@... writes:

I missed the article, if Hillary is elected as our President, we may no longer be able to exempt on vaccines??? Tracey!!

No, it's an urban myth. There is not one credible source that says this. The article is complete and total propaganda and as with all propaganda it is designed to promote hysteria, not fact. It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

I missed the article, if Hillary is elected as our President, we may no longer be able to exempt on vaccines??? Tracey!! Pattison <egerpatt@...> wrote: I disagree with you. jarkat2002aol wrote: In a message dated 3/4/2008 8:17:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt writes: That wasnt the point. If you want to be able to excercise your right to utilize vaccine exemptions, like I do, under Hillary you may not have this option as widely available... I use the exemptions as well. This statement simply isn't true "under Hillary you may not have this option as widely available" I'm sorry that you based your vote on propaganda. the article was ver clear about her position on this and to me was good information that I used myself when voting today. It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

I am quite shocked that anyone would call her the thermisol queen, I swear not to long ago I read an articl stating that Hillary was very concerned about the high rise is autism, and she wants to donate so many billions to research every year to get answers on why the high rise in autism, search for a cure, & also money to help families & hospitals dealing with the abundence of children affected by autism!!! Tracey P.S. I would be quite devistated if she took are option away to exempt immunuzations!DMHelmick7@... wrote: I didn't have a chance to really dig into this but if this goes back to 1993, the point is that there wasn't much said in 1993 on the connection between autism and vacinnes so how would Hillary Clinton have known of it? I think she was trying to make a good effort to help rather than hurt. I have to read and re-read this article before I can say more but if that is the case, I don't know if there was much on the connection back then. I just wanted to get this in as I am pressed for time. I do want to know more and I can't make a judgement either way at this time. ps. I think it wouldn't be fair to call her a thimerasol queen unless she is going against the connection at this current time when there is so much more written about it. Is she still pushing vacinnations? sorry I haven't the time to dive in and research

thoroughly..but I will soon. Yours, n In a message dated 3/3/08 9:57:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, egerpatt writes: Subj:[ ] Fwd: Hillary Clinton - The Thimerosal Queen & The Mother of the Autism Epidemic Date:3/3/08 9:57:49 PM Eastern Standard Time From: egerpatt ( Pattison) Sender: Reply-to: (autismNE), autism-biomed-ohio (biomedohio), autismbiomedcleveland (autismbiomedcleveland) OK, here's my contribution to the discussion....forwarding this interesting article from another list. Thanks,

It's Mrs. Clinton's shot at an inoculation cure - Hillary Rodham Clinton's effort to supply childhood vaccines to every pre-school child Insight on the News, Feb 22, 1993 by Elena Neuman Summary: Bush poured money into getting more preschoolers vaccinated, but the effort was criticized as meager, and some experts question whether greater spending is even the right prescription. Now Hillary Clinton will get her turn at a chronic national problem. In a little-publicized 1991 media event, Arkansas's first lady blasted the Bush administration for its purported failure to pay for adequate supplies of childhood vaccines. "That has always been one of the most inexplicable positions taken by the administration over the years," said Hillary Clinton from a podium she shared with Jocelyn Elders, who has been

picked to become the new surgeon general. "Because if preventative health care is a positive thing, what better way than through immunization?" She revisited the subject at a Nov. 18 appearance before the Children's Defense Fund, the advocacy group she once led. "We owe our children more than we've been giving them," she declared. "What on earth could be more important than making sure that every child has the chance to be born healthy, to receive immunizations and health care as that child grows?" Now the nation's first lady, appointed by her husband to lead his planned overhaul of the nation's health care system, Mrs. Clinton is in a position to follow through on these complaints. And a plan to federally fund all childhood vaccines will reportedly be the administration's first health care reform. If childhood immunization is less than universal because of neglect by penny-pinching

Republicans in the White House, as the Clinton campaign charged, then giving children the medical attention they deserve is one campaign promise that should be easy to fulfill. According to the most quoted statistics, compiled by UNICEF and the Children's Defense Fund, the United States ranks 17th in the world - behind countries like Albania, Poland, Mexico and Pakistan - for the percentage of 1-year-olds who have been vaccinated against polio. A Children's Defense Fund survey this past summer found that most states report preschool vaccination coverage levels below 60 percent; in cities such as Los Angeles, Houston, Cleveland and Chicago, fewer than 50 percent of children under age 2 have received shots to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and other childhood diseases, the report said. Childhood immunization has been a hot issue since 1989, when it

attracted national media attention because of an outbreak of measles - a disease all but wiped out in 1983. Infections of whooping cough also rose in the late eighties, primarily due to parents forgoing DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) shots for their children after media reports that the vaccine caused serious adverse reactions, even death. The Bush record on children's health was thus an open target for liberal criticism. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post less than a month before the election, commentator Kinsley said the issue was a touchstone distinguishing Bush voters from Clinton voters. Describing the problem as an "aspect of the general decline of national wellbeing that snuck up on us while we were partying in the 1980s," he laid the blame at the doorstep of "people with no faith in the power of government to do good." What made him a Democrat, Kinsley offered, was

his feeling that "as a citizen of the richest country in the world, this is a problem I shouldn't have to worry about. And I wish we had a president who would take whatever action, and spend whatever money, is necessarry to solve it." Katz, a professor of pediatrics at Duke University Medical Center and the chairman of the Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, echoed this analysis in late December and urged Bill Clinton to be the president Kinsley had wished for. "With the de-emphasis on federal support originating during the Reagan years and continuing through the Bush administration, problems have undermined the nation's mandate to protect its children "he wrote in a Scripps column. "Childhood vaccination must be a sure bet. President Bush's health-care promises proved empty. They let down the innocent children among us. Let's hope Bill Clinton's medical agenda puts the nation's

future - its children - first and foremost." Even Hollywood has thrown its weight behind the call for greater efforts at childhood immunization. In 1991, Spielberg, Kate Capshaw, Henry Winkler, Bill Cosby and a host of entertainment executives and producers formed the Children's Action Network, in association with the American Academy of Pediatrics, to launch a full- scale immunization awareness drive. Despite this seeming unanimity of liberal opinion, however, the Clintons may have a tough time living up to expectations. The indictment of the Bush administration for inaction on immunization left out two stubborn facts: Federal efforts have hardly been lacking; and the problem is more complicated than it has been portrayed. Advocates of a full federal offensive have emphasized the Bush administration's failure to propose spending as much as Congress appropriated. Left out is the fact

that spending on childhood preventive medicine may have been the fastest growing federal budget line in the Bush years - increasing by 250 percent. Federal spending on immunization in fiscal 1988 was $98 million; in fiscal 1992 it was $297 million; and for fiscal 1993, which began Oct. 1, Bush requested $349 million. During those years, funding for two new vaccines, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type b, plus a booster shot for measles, mumps and rubella was added to the budget. Nor were federal efforts limited to increased funding. In 1991, Bush directed his top health officials to do a six-month study of six major urban centers to determine how the national immunization rate could be improved; upon receiving the panel's suggestions to make public clinics more user-friendly, he approved an additional $46 million to support vaccine distribution and education, quite apart from vaccine supply.

Vaccine "one-stop shopping" centers and immunization "express lanes" were planned for inner cities; plans were drawn up to consolidate government aid centers with public clinics to make it easier for poor parents to have their preschool children immunized at the same time as and in the same office where they applied for food stamps or welfare benefits. These policy moves were "innovative and unusual. An important first step " says Talbott, executive director of Every Child by Two, an advocacy organization for children's immunization founded by former first lady lynn and Betty Bumpers, wife of Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers. It was the first time since a federal immunization grant program was authorized in 1962 that money was allotted for functions other than the purchase of vaccines, and health care professionals applauded. Almost without exception, Democrats on Capitol Hill

criticized the policy, not on its merits but as too little, too late, or as a Band- Aid approach. "We don't need a six-city road show to study the problem"' said Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts. "We need a general federal commitment to see that every child is immunized" Katz told the Los Angeles Daily News that Bush had "finked out" on children. Now, former Bush health officials profess amazement at the way a massive budget increase, coupled with policy innovations, was turned into a political liability. "The notion that there haven't been enormous increases in public health service funding, distribution and services during the Bush administration simply belies the fact of what's happened - during a time when there was a great deal of constraint over the general federal spending," says Moley, former deputy secretary of health and human services. Moley, like other Bush officials,

ridicules the notion that the international rankings of UNICEF are reliable - that statistics from, say, Pakistan or Albania are reported accurately. "After all this talk, are [the Clinton people] prepared to match the percentage increases the Bush administration put through in such areas as immunization for children, Head Start and AIDS? ... I don't know where they're going to get the money to do this unless they dramatically increase taxes or the deficit." That may in fact be the plan. The Children's Defense Fund advocates tripling spending - to $1 billion - for a universal immunization purchase program in which all vaccines, for both public clinics and private physicians, would be federally funded. Given Mrs. Clinton's close ties to the organization, it's not surprising that the idea is being seriously considered. And although the Clinton administration says it has not quite figured out how to pay

for the expensive federal program, higher taxes would in fact be consistent with a campaign speech that Clinton delivered to a convention of the American Association of Retired Persons in June in San , Texas. He said he planned to raise taxes on people making more than $200,000 to pay for specific programs - among them prenatal health care and immunization for all preschoolers. The problem is that with all the money that has been poured into the immunization program in the past four years and with the restructuring of the program, there has not been a corresponding improvement in rates at which preschoolers get their shots. While measles has been brought under control, some experts attribute its demise to the natural run of an epidemiological cycle rather than any Public Health Service action. Some immunization experts insist that to fully immunize the nation's children, particularly children in

poverty, the issue is less one of how much the federal government is willing to spend than of how willing the government is to be paternalistic when parents are irresponsible. According to Walter Orenstein, director of the department of immunization at the federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the chief cause of the measles resurgence "was not a problem with vaccine supply, but a problem with delivery of services and parents' lack of knowledge about the vaccine schedule." But when Roper, the Bush-appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control, suggested in 1991 that parents might share the blame for vaccination rates, he was denounced as being politically insensitive. His suggestion was to make welfare checks to mothers contingent upon immunization of their preschoolers, just as public school admission has since the 1970s required full vaccination. (It is for this reason that the

immunization rate of schoolage children is nearly 100 percent.) "We all know that spending money and having coverage is not the only problem that we have to deal with, but we're not allowed to say it"' says Gail Wilensky, former special assistant to Bush for health care. "We need to get people to engage in more responsible behavior when it comes to their children. We need to stop pretending that this is just a financing health care problem." Moley says, "You've got crack-addicted mothers trying to survive day by day whose last thought in the world is getting their children properly immunized. But God forbid anyone should suggest that parental irresponsibility and bad behavior are a factor here." ph Liu, a senior associate and health care specialist at the Children's Defense Fund, has been one of the most vocal opponents of this view. To him it's more a matter of parental ignorance (and a large

dose of Republican mishandling) than of irresponsibility. "You can go to almost any very concerned, very involved parent and ask them what's the immunization schedule that their child needs from birth to age 4, and you won't find single parent out of a hundred that has the ability to recite that schedule," he says. In the past, pediatricians kept track of immunizations and informed parents of when to bring their children in. Today, says Liu, many families don't have such a relationship with a pediatrician. Parents just don't know what they're supposed to be doing. In addition, points out Judith Shea of the National Association of Community Health Centers, the system of public immunization is too diffuse. "There isn't a coordinated system throughout the states," she says. "The communication among all the entities administering public vaccines is not as fluid as it should be." Public clinics are often

disorganized, require long waits and the scheduling of appointments weeks or months in advance, and aren't open at hours that working parents can manage. Recent studies also have found clinics to be burdened by an ever- increasing clientele. A 1991 survey of Dallas-area pediatricians and family practitioners published in Pediatrics magazine found that more than 70 percent referred some of their patients to public clinics rather than administer the vaccines themselves. And a Milwaukee study found that children not covered by health insurance were far more likely to be sent by their doctors to public clinics. (Only half of private insurance plans cover the cost of immunization.) Although there hasn't been a problem with vaccine supply in the clinics, the increased use has led to longer waits for appointments and in waiting rooms. The rectify these problems, a Bush-appointed group of federal,

state, local and private organizations developed "Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices" based on the recommendations of the Public Health Service's National Vaccine Advisory Committee. The standards suggest keeping clinics open during off-hours and weekends; vaccinating children on a walk-in basis, thereby eliminating the need for scheduling appointments; forgoing the requirement of comprehensive physical examinations before administering vaccines; vaccinating children who come to a clinic for services other than a vaccine or who accompany other family members; and administering in a single visit all vaccinations for which a child is eligible. "We're trying to do a better job of making our clinical services user- friendly," says Orenstein of the CDC. "It's very clear that we have to work with the public and private sector to do this. It isn't simply a matter of just education.

It's an issue of trying to make the services as pleasant as possible, to reduce clinic waits and to not require appointments all the time." Sen. Riegle, a Michigan Democrat, is introducing legislation - the Comprehensive Child Health Immunization Act - that seeks to implement the standards as a matter of federal law. Optimism about the new standards is not unanimous, however. Jan kson, executive director of the National Vaccine Information Center, says the elimination of comprehensive physicals and the simultaneous inoculation of siblings would lead to an increase in adverse reactions to vaccines. "There are a host of reasons that we shouldn't lessen the restrictions. We should, in fact, tighten them up," she says. "The intent of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was to make vaccines safer, so these standards really fly against Congress's intent in passing that law, which still now

should form the basis of any federal policy about immunization campaigns." kson is referring to a law passed in 1986 in response to a number of serious neurological reactions and deaths from the whooping cough vaccine. A slew of lawsuits against the manufacturers of the vaccine threatened to put them out of business and jeopardized the nation's vaccine supply. They also sent the prices of most vaccines skyrocketing. The price of the DTP vaccine, for example, has risen 5,147 percent from its low of 19 cents a dose in 1977 to $9.97 in 1992. The 1986 law partially rectified the crisis by legislating medical precautions for administering vaccines as well as a publicly financed vaccine injury compensation fund to eliminate the need for outside litigation against the companies. "The at-risk indicators for a vaccine adverse reaction are if there has been a history in that family among siblings or very close

relatives of having had an adverse reaction," says kson. "So the recommendation of giving siblings simultaneous vaccinations seems misguided. Having some sort of sequenced pattern to having siblings receive vaccinations makes a lot more sense. But really the most risk is introduced by not having competent medical professionals do the exams, the screening and admininistering of the vaccinations. Doctors are not well-trained enough to diagnose adverse reactions, and if doctors aren't well-trained enough, you can certainly imagine that other persons without the professional training, what their deficiencies would be in recognizing adverse reactions," The National Vaccine Information Center, an advocacy group for families of children injured by vaccines, has tracked 360 deaths and 17,221 other serious adverse reactions due to vaccinations in the 20 months leading up to July 1992. This, they say, represents

only a fraction of the number of adverse reactions. (The CDC and many pediatricians and neurologists, on the other hand, question whether vaccines are the true cause of all these injuries and deaths.) kson, Orenstein and other immunization professionals further question the universal vaccine purchase program promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, the American Association of Pediatrics and other heath care organizations. While Orenstein concedes that universal purchase would prevent fragmentation of care while also stopping the overuse of public clinics by children who are normally treated by private physicians, he says he wonders whether such an expensive solution would solve the problem of low vaccination rates in the inner cities. "We still will need to improve our health care delivery capacities in the inner cities," he says. "We shouldn't think that buying the vaccines will somehow get a kid

in Harlem vaccinated. Moreover, will vaccine manufacturers drop out of the market as a result of universal purchase? That is a potential threat. Will they invest the same amount of money in research? That is not clear." Vaccine manufacturers expressed just these concerns upon receiving word of Clinton's universal purchase plans, and the CDC is currently funding a study to determine the benefits and risks of universal purchase. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, however, seems to suggest that universal purchase would not solve the nation's preschool immunization problem. The study found that in caring for the uninsured and underinsured, expanded free or subsidized health care for low-income pregnant women was not associated with an improvement in access to prenatal care or in birth outcomes. Between 1984 and 1987, the study reported, the rate of Massachusetts women who

received prenatal care declined, even as public care received increased funding. "The Clinton people have a lot to learn on this issue, and they've just been following a very knee-jerk kind of reaction"' says kson. "They think that universal immunization is a great thing to do for children, when in fact it really is a very poor effort at trying to safeguard children's health." Immunization of preschoolers may prove to be one of those problems that everyone - Democrat and Republican alike - would like to solve, but that can't be solved by money alone. Bush tried his hand at it for four years. Now it's Clinton's turn. COPYRIGHT 1993 News World Communications, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group --- End forwarded message --- ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <sentto-10042525-7694-1204599457-DMHelmick7=wmconnect.comreturns (DOT) > Received: from rly-mb05.mail.aol.com (rly-mb05.mail.aol.com [172.20.118.141]) by air-mb02.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMB24-ea47ccbaa2296; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:57:49 -0500 Received: from n32c.bullet.scd. (n32c.bullet.scd. [66.94.237.10]) by rly-mb05.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMB54-ea47ccbaa2296; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:57:38 -0500 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam./domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=;

b=MbI3AK588Wt3Di/l81tr3Tl7ErATt8tNgErB0imetcVwynQlmHpN1upMMEUBICClu8uDv7rByxwEdEG3Y5Cz4xaGJihlefse9mxy4GBG/P1JayD1ysOAaSwjOCrnHoaE; Received: from [66.218.69.6] by n32.bullet.scd. with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2008 02:57:38 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.157] by t6.bullet.scd. with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2008 02:57:38 -0000 X--Newman-Id: 10042525-m7694 X-Sender: egerpatt X-Apparently- X-Received: (qmail 11596 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2008 02:57:35 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.94) by m53.grp.scd. with QMQP; 4 Mar 2008 02:57:35 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO web52002.mail.re2.) (206.190.49.249) by mta15.grp.scd. with SMTP; 4 Mar 2008 02:57:35 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 13481 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Mar 2008 02:57:34

-0000 X-YMail-OSG: LRrSGo0VM1lfx9Yi02yKt5OSmFxJoL_hoi.MbK.m_L0Nq0zp8zmqIsU2XZp7ZBqsUQfPrEjaGX46ADwhmlMhgVPCunBHTzi9LRE4pEOUKWj91P_2Ij7a9nGUj0VleLwb1XH9c9evGDQaFdE- X-Received: from [75.39.91.150] by web52002.mail.re2. via HTTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:57:34 PST autismNE < >, biomedohio <autism-biomed-ohio >, autismbiomedcleveland <autismbiomedcleveland > Message-ID: <743717.10531.qmweb52002 (DOT) mail.re2.> X-Originating-IP: 206.190.49.249 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 From: Pattison <egerpatt > X--Profile: egerpatt Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list

; contact -owner Delivered-mailing list List-Id: < .> Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto: -unsubscribe > Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:57:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ ] Fwd: Hillary Clinton - The Thimerosal Queen & The Mother of the Autism Epidemic Reply- X--Newman-Property: groups-email-ff-m Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1781370598-1204599454=:10531" X-AOL-IP: 66.94.237.10 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:2:469453504:9395240 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 1 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : n X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : n

[Guest guest]

Okay, thank's!!! Seem's as if I read Senator Mcain believes there is something in vaccines that is triggering epidemic number's in autism! Tracey!!!jarkat2002@... wrote: In a message dated 3/6/2008 1:09:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jowcasbcglobal (DOT) net writes: I missed the article, if Hillary is elected as our President, we may no longer

be able to exempt on vaccines??? Tracey!! No, it's an urban myth. There is not one credible source that says this. The article is complete and total propaganda and as with all propaganda it is designed to promote hysteria, not fact. It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.