December 7, 2006

Outing the Gay Republicans of Autism?

John Gilmore of A-CHAMP asks the question, should high profile closet DAN! families be outed?

I imagine everybody knows about the problem of the gay Republican politician. There are lots gay Republican politicians, but to be a good Republican these days you have to denounce anything that smacks of homosexuality. This, of course, leads to all kinds of hypocrisy. The gay community is divided about whether these people should be outed or not.

We have a similar problem in the autism movement, and those are the leaders of large autism organizations who refuse to acknowledge that there is an epidemic, refuse to spend any of the money that they have extracted from this community on anything related to vaccine safety issues, mercury or any of the methodologies being investigated by DAN and related researchers.

But at the same time they are taking their own affected children to DAN doctors, chelating their kids, getting them scoped by Wakefield or Krigsman, and refusing vaccines for their children. Are they liars? Are they hypocrites? Are they the people who will get us to where we need to go? And what should be done by the rest of us with our own "gay Republicans." Should we ask them to explain themselves? Is the discrepancy between their public actions and statements and their private actions anybody else's business. Are we not allowed to ask them what they are doing in Arthur Krigsman's waiting room when their organizations won't even acknowledge that GI issues are part of autism. Are we being complicit in hypocrisy by remaining silent?


I have been thinkin' a little about this and here are my initial thoughts.

I am thinking there are two different ethical scenarios. Because we are talking about children's medical information, I think that we need to be sure we don't step on children's rights.

I am thinking if a parent tells someone in confidence about their child's treatment, and asks that you keep it private, regardless of their public stance, you should not break that trust, unless there is some sort of mistreatment of a specific child going on.


If you see a parent in a waiting room, I think that asking the question, "Why are you not preaching what you practice", is legit. I think that question should be asked in private first to give them the chance to really do some self-examination about the impact of their decision to with hold vital information from other parents who are looking to them as leaders for some direction as to what they should do for their own child.

But if they are given that opportunity and sufficient time to really come around, then I don't think I could condemn anyone who 'outed' them.

I think about this in the context of my own blogging. Now head of a multi-million dollar autism organization I ain't, but I have put myself (and my child to some extent) out in public. I have made myself a public figure (in the legal sense) by blogging. If I am unwilling to open myself up to scrutiny on the issues that I bring to the table, then I have no integrity.

If I encourage parents to look in one direction for treatment while I am pursuing another for my child, then shame on me.

...your thoughts?


Anonymous said...

Out them. If you know who they are, publish names, please.

autismmoma said...


I like your thoughts and you are correct. That is the question I asked last week. How can we trust those in the major organizations when integrity has been brought into question? I am glad you articulated it so well.

Anonymous said...

We had a similar situation in the UK over the MMR with demands that Tony Blair, the prime minister, should state unequivocally whether or not his son had had the MMR or separate jabs. all the smart money was on separate jabs but he refused to comment on grounds of his child's right to privacy.

What is the context in the USA? Is it about high profile leaders of orgs like Autism Speaks who are privately paying for biomedical quackery but publicly sponsoring respectable scientific research?

Ginger Taylor said...


That is the context. Are heads of large autism organizations like CAN and AS seeking biomedical (I am going to go ahead and use the term "treatment" here, as my child is actually having his autistic symptoms mitigated through said interventions)treatment for their autistic children, while dismissing or ignoring such treatments and the efficacy publicly.

I think that your example is a good comparison, but it would be a better one if he had spoken publicly about the debate between single dose and multi dose options, and fallen on the side of multi dose. If he was going to recommend it to others, he better be practicing it on his own children. I am sure that his silence probably answers the question for us.

The question the way John posed it presupposes that there are such cases.

Maddy said...

Well written and hear hear. We may not always get it right, but as long as we practice what we 'preach' I think that parents [and hopefully children] will give us the benefit of the doubt, as we 'feel' our way.
Best wishes

Anonymous said...

Let's be clear. This is about Bob Wright, isn't it?

Ginger Taylor said...

Joseph... are you outing Bob Wright??! Did you see him while you were in the waiting room at Bradstreet's office when you were waiting to be seen?? ;)

Seriously thought... At this point we are merely posing the ethical questions here. I am not interested in starting unsubstantiated rumors on my little bloglet.

I will pose the question in reverse for you and your 'team', if someone was at the head of any of the biomed groups, NAA, SafeMinds, ACHAMP, et al. and was NOT treating their child biomedically over safety and efficacy issues, should they be outed?

More interesting question to pose to you might be, seeing as you oppose biomedical treatment (let me know if I am making assumptions here), what do you think about people in mainstream organizations seeking biomed on the downlow?

Mine is an equal opportunity blog, all viewpoints welcome as long as they are in the spirit of fair play.

Anonymous said...

"seeing as you oppose biomedical treatment"

Actually, that might be said of you Ginger, if you're doing chelation. Chelation for alleged thimerosal "poisoning" in response to childhood immunizations is considered alternative medicine at best. It's not considered biomedical treatment, which pertains to the science of clinical medicine.

Ginger Taylor said...

Honestly, you can call it Voodoo for all I care. It works for Chandler and I am long past trying to convince people who don't want it to work, that it does.

John Best said...

Ginger, Don't you enjoy how they descend on you in a pack with their illogic? It's like they're begging to be convinced so they can cure themselves. Maybe they're all secretly using biomed already and are scared you will "out" them.

Anonymous said...

Alright, then, your query should read:

"what do you think about people in mainstream organizations seeking Voodoo on the downlow?"

Anonymous said...

Wait, do I understand that John Gilmore is saying that Dr. Arthur Krigsman is a gay Republican?

Ginger Taylor said...


apparently we are saying Arthur Krigsman is a Gay, Republican, Which Doctor.

Wait... how did we get here?

Back to the point of this whole thing....

Is it ok to out people who are not preaching what they are practicing? Does the involvement of children make it ok, where it might not be ok for adults?

Ginger Taylor said...

... but thanks people..

'cause you know that I do appreciate the funny.

Anonymous said...

I think if who we are talking about here is Bob Wright's grandson. Bob is not in charge of his grandson's medical treatment, though one might think he is paying some of the bill. Katie Hildebrand and her husband would have been the ones taking the boy to Krigsman, if that is what happened. Hildebrand has made it fairly clear that she think alternative medicine DAN! style is the way to go, and she's made it pretty clear she thinks she had a normal boy who was stolen from her by a vaccination or vaccinations.

Bob tried to distance himself from that on Imus even as his daughter was basically taking a stand for it. So really, we don't know if he thinks its good or not. His website has links to chelationists, so there you go, maybe he is preaching what his daughter practices.

Lee Grossman of ASA doesn't do the DAN! thing, but ASA tries to stay neutralish, leaning toward DAN! if anything. Who else could need to be

Anonymous said...

I agree with anon 12:24's comment. Who else does Gilmore feel needs outing? This item with the Wrights was all over the boards and I am really not clear on the intent of this particular blogger's blogpost on the subject. Somewhere, though, HIPPA has been violated.

Ginger Taylor said...

You would have to ask Gilmore who needed to be outed.

As for the Wrights thing being on the boards, I missed that. I took several months off this year to tend to my own little guy. Please direct me to a source if you can remember one.

Even if it was on the boards, that is not really the same as calling someone out in the media. I got the impression that was what John was talking about.

And I am not sure what you mean about the intent of the blog post. As I said earlier, before anyone starts calling press confrences, I think it is always a good idea to look at the ethics involved.

Situational ethics are almost always a bad idea. It is our tendency to set our ethical standards according to what suits us in the moment, rather than thinking them out ahead of time, and sticking to them even when it does not work out in our favor.

That is HUGELY true in this debate where there are such high stakes. It is easy to step on people's rights and claim 'the greater good' when you feel that your cause is a life and death one.

I think as people involved in the discussions on autism that we have taken on, it behoves us to do a little self-examination, decide on the moral principles that are appropriate, and apply them as seriously to ourselves as we do to those we criticize.

Is that a better explanation?

Anonymous said...

Yes. That's an infinitely better explanation and I thank you. I will respond to more of what you have presented later today. Thanks, again.

Anonymous said...

More interesting question to pose to you might be, seeing as you oppose biomedical treatment (let me know if I am making assumptions here), what do you think about people in mainstream organizations seeking biomed on the downlow?

I don't oppose biomedical treatment in general. I just don't believe it works or that it can have significant effectiveness in autism. Grandiose claims about biomed treatments which have been subsequently proven to be nearly useless are starting to become commonplace in autism.

I am anti-cure about autism, meaning I don't want to be cured myself and that I support others who don't want or need to be cured. I don't think I'd oppose treatment for just any cogntive disability, if available and proven. Case in point, PKU, whose treatment is diet no less.

Anti-cure can also mean that since no cure is possible at the moment, a social model of disability is preferable to a medical model of disability. This can apply to disabilities in general.

As to your question, clearly Bob Wright is like any other parent/grandparent, and he has bought the medical model of autism, and is trying to find medical ways to deal with autism, even if he's probably misguided in the method/persons he's chosen to follow. There's nothing surprising or unusual about it.

Anonymous said...

I apologize that this is off-topic, however it is of paramount importance so please bear with me.

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch, with someone who was there when he was attempting to fly a small airplane saying that Hanjour was so clumsy that he was unsure if he had driven a car before. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports after Mohammed Atta supposedly leaves two rental cars at two impossibly far-removed locations. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name ("Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham"), more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that doesn't look like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces most no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Debunking Popular Mechanics lies:
someone else debunking Popular Mechanics crap:
still more debunking Popular Mechanics:
and still more debunking of Popular Mechanics:

Popular Mechanics staff replaced just before laughable “debunking” article written:
another neo-con 9/11 hit piece explodes, is retracted:
Professor Steven Jones debunks the N.I.S.T. “report” as well as the F.E.M.A. one and the 9/11 commission "report":
N.I.S.T. scientist interviewed:
F.B.I. says no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 which is why his wanted poster says nothing about 9/11:
Fire Engineering magazine says important questions about the Twin Tower “collapses” still need to be addressed:

Twin Towers’ construction certifiers say they should have easily withstood it:
USA Today interview with the last man out of the South Tower, pursued by a fireball:
Janitor who heard explosions and escaped has testimony ignored by 9/11 whitewash commission:
Janitor starts speaking out about it and his apartment is burglarized, laptop stolen:
Firefighters tell of multiple explosions:
Eyewitnesses tell of explosions:
Interview with another firefighter telling of explosions:
Firefighter saw “sparkles” (strobe lights on detonators?) before “collapse”:
Other eyewitnesses talk of seeing/hearing explosions:
Surviving eyewitnesses talk of multiple explosions there:
Cutter charge explosions clearly visible:
The pyroclastic cloud (that dust cloud that a second before was concrete) and how it wouldn’t be possible without explosives:
Detailed description of the demolition of the Twin Towers:
Freefall rate of “collapses” math:
More about their freefall rate “collapses”:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building:
More of WTC # 7 controlled demolition:
Naudet brothers' video footage of the North Tower crash:
Photos of the Pentagon’s lawn (look at these and see if you can tell me with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed there):!.htm
More photos of this amazing lawn at the Pentagon:!%20(9-11).htm
Very unconvincing fake “Osama” “confession” tape:
More about the fake “Osama” tape:
Fake “Mohammed Atta” “suicide” letter:
Commercial pilots disagree with “official” 9/11 myth:
More commercial jet pilots say “official” myth is impossible:
Impossibility of cell phone calls from United 93:
More about the impossible cell phone calls:
Experiment proves cell phone calls were NOT possible from anywhere near the altitude the “official” myth has them at:
Fake Barbara Olson phone call:
Where the hell was the Air Force?
More about the Air Force impotence question:
Sept. 10th 2001, Pentagon announces it is “missing” $2.3 trillion (now why do you think they picked THAT day to announce it? So it could be buried the next day by 9/11 news):
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan:
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan mentioned:
More on Unocal Afghan pipeline:
The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the summer of 2001, months before 9/11:
Pentagon deliberately misled 9/11 Commission:
Evidence destruction by authorities and cover-up:
9/11 whitewash Commission and NORAD day:
The incredible fish tales of the 9/11 Commission examined:
Jeb Bush declares state of emergency 4 days before 9/11 for Florida, saying it will help respond to terrorism:
Steel debris removal from Ground Zero, destruction of evidence:
Over two hundred incriminating bits of 9/11 evidence shown in the mainstream media:
Tracking the “hijackers”:
“Hijacker” patsies:
“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:
Several accused "hijackers" still alive and well, wondering why they are accused:
Yet the F.B.I. insists that the people it claims were the "hijackers" really were the "hijackers":
No Arabs on Flight 77:
Thirty experts say “official” 9/11 myth impossible:
“Al Qaeda” website tracks back to Maryland:
Al Qaeda videos uploaded from U.S. government website:
Operation: Northwoods, a plan for a false-flag “terror” attack to be blamed on Castro to use it as a pretext for America to invade Cuba, thankfully not approved by Kennedy back in 1962 but was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to his desk:

Anonymous said...

G -

I think your solid to the core and it's just simply a blessing to have your knowlegde here for many to see ... both sides of the scope if you will.

Peace and Happy New Year.