I read Jake's story on being ejected from your most recent event after asking a question during the question and answer period.
From his telling of the story, what you did seems to me be very heavy handed and inappropriate at the least, and some pretty ugly censorship and cowardice on your part at most.
As you have censored my own comments on your blog in the past, and have stated outright that you wish that David Kirby would be censored in his vaccine writing, I tend to believe Jake's story on its face, but I want to allow for the fact that Jake did not report the incident accurately, thus my reason for contacting you with a few questions.
1. Did he accurately report the incident?
2. If so, do you not believe that an apology to him is in order?
3. If he did not report the incident accurately, what did he get wrong and is there a recording of the event?
4. If so, what was the "heckling" incident that you referred to at a previous event and why did it preclude him from asking a non-heckling question at this event? When and where did it take place, what was said, what administrative or security action was taken, and is there a recording of that event?
5. Is Jake precluded from asking you questions in the future? Is he precluded from attending any of your speaking engagements in the future? Have you given him any notice to stay away, or a cease and desist or has any form of restraining order been issued?
6. Like Jake, I have been very critical of your writing in my own blogging. Am I allowed to attend your events and ask you questions? If so what are the parameters for asking you questions and do they differ from someone who might agree with you on your vaccine stance?
7. Is there anyone else from the autism, vaccine injury, vaccine safety or anti-vaccine communities, or from the medical community that is skeptical of the safety and efficacy claims made about the current vaccine program, that are not allowed to attend your events or ask you questions?
8. Finally, (and with brutal frankness) If Mr. Crosby's story is accurate, and he has been appropriate in his actions at your events, and your own desire to silence your challengers is at the heart of why you had him removed from the room, is this a pattern you intend to continue? Can anyone asking you a question which you believe you will not not be able to answer well, or which might make you look bad in front of the audience, expect to be slandered and escorted from the room?
I want to get this cleared up as people have expressed in increasing interest in attending your speaking events and challenging your assertions, many of which (myself included) believe are grossly inaccurate and/or irresponsible. We certainly want to know up front if you intend on misrepresenting any of us as you seem to have done with Jake or if it is Jake who is misrepresenting you.
Your prompt response is appreciated.
Adventures In Autism
News and commentary on the autism epidemic and my beautiful boy who is living with autism.
December 12, 2011
Update: December 19th. One week out, and other than an auto reply, no response. Not even an "It's the holidays and I am knitting sweaters with my grandma, will get back to you in the new year."
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Please update us with any response you receive. Are we taking bets? I place mine on no response because you asked such specific questions which shine a bold spotlight on his lies. He has no response, and he knows it.
Well you called it Carrie. No response.
NTs don't talk now, either. Ironic, eh?
Some might say I have a twisted sense of humor cause I find that funny, but it's the only sort I'm able to muster these days.
Well said Ginger!
Actually it doesn't matter if Seth Mnookin ignores your very pertinent questions. The IMPORTANT thing is that you asked them and have been seen to ask them. If they are ignored then we are all entitled to draw our own conclusions.
Merry Christmas jumpers!!
I think we're missing the point here. Seth is a mainstream IMPORTANT journalist. Ergo, he is above such questions from such folks.
Once again we are guilty of confusing the politics of autism with the search for truth.
Oh and I suppose you believe you're entitled to a response.
So let me see if I can get this straight? If somebody censors another person's comments but won't give a reasonable explanation as to why that person is being censored, then it's legitimate to draw the conclusion that that person has something to hide.
Unless of course that person's a long time friend or business associate like Ms. Stagliano.
Once again, we see it--that pervasive NT hypocrisy.
When I was censored NOT ONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS COULD BE BOTHERED TO GET BACK TO ME.
Choose what you believe, choose who you believe. But if I were you, I would look at how far the vaccine injured community has progessed in recent years. Lol. Seems to me that maybe your faith's been misplace. Just a suggestion.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, Age of Autism is not my blog, and I don't have any control over their commenting policy. As such, I don't take any responsibility for comments they decide not to post. I am sorry that you are unhappy with their comments policy, but that does not have anything to do with me.
I do not moderate comments here, I almost never delete comments here and I do respond to critical emails that people send me.
Any outlet may choose who can and can't use their platform to express their opinions, and who they are going to respond to and who they won't, but there are consequences for those choices depending on the perceived reasonability of their readership. Moderating comments and not responding to a criticism, not the best for building trust in my opinion, but it is a valid choice. But physically ejecting someone from an event for asking a legit questions, and charging them with behaving disorderly... if it ain't true, it is slander.
Jake is a bright guy, and will be an epidemiologist when he finishes at GW. This was potentially one professional lying about another. This should be cleared up.
So you see, this issue is not merely about censorship, it is about lying. Seth and Jake have each told a very different story on a series of events, and at least one of them is lying. Would like to get to the bottom of that.
Nothing to do with you though your blog posts are on her site, Jakes concerns were chronicled there, and your concerns about Mnookin are there today? Not saying that you’re necessarily complicit in her lies but the idea that her site has nothing to do with you—I’m not buying it.
You wrote: ‘As you have censored my own comments on your blog in the past .. I tend to believe Jake's story on its face, but I want to allow for the fact that Jake did not report the incident accurately, thus my reason for contacting you with a few questions.’ It doesn’t necessarily follow that you would tend to believe my story on its face in a he said/she said situation with Kim. My comments were censored and not yours and it is your right to not believe me. But I am curious—did you ever take the time to ask Kim if it was true, when I wrote that my comment was censored? I’m all for freedom of association and it’s your right to ask questions of any people you like. But I’m curious as to why you’re so concerned about Jake’s reputation and ability to speak without being censored as opposed to mine. Don’t talk to me about professionalism. All that matters since Bruesewitz v Wyeth is public opinion.
If you were to ask Kim why I was not permitted to post a comment that she felt would be embarrassing for her Autism Speaks friend, I imagine her response would be something on the order of Mr. Gallucci’s. “If you believe my story, as you claim that you do, about the arrest attempt and lies that were told by the local Autism Speaks chapter president—why then does your organization continue to help them raise money? ” His response- “I’m not going to write off a whole group of people because YOU have some issues with them.” I suppose Kim would have no reason to write off her friends at AS simply because I happen to have ‘some issues’ with them. Police were told that I was harassing and threatening guests—a blatant lie. Then Ms. Goldberg claimed the arrest attempted never happened—another lie. I’m not talking about mere censorship. You don’t have to explain lies and slander to me. I’m no lawyer but if I wasn’t lied to and slandered by the local chapter president of AS, it’s a damn fine line.
It’s my understanding that Jake was ejected from a book signing. “It all happened on December 2 .. when I attended the “Research Ethics Book Group Lunch and Book Signing” As for being ejected from a book signing - I know how it feels. I too was recently physically ejected from a book signing - Kim’s book signing here in Cleveland, for speaking legit statements and questions. There were people who didn’t like the things I said to people who were there to purchase her book. It was my understanding that THAT event was a ‘public’ one. It took place in a hotel however and when I was told by hotel personnel that I had to leave I assumed that hotel personnel were within their rights to make me leave. Are you quite sure that the conference organizers weren’t within their rights to ask Jake to leave?
Get to the bottom of what? You want to get to the bottom of why people lie? They lie when it’s lucrative and they can get away with it. We’ve seen it with Offit and Gerberding and leaders of the ‘support’ organizations. I would like nothing better than to get to the bottom of the lies that were told by Shari Goldberg that Apr of 07. I’ve seen these lies for the better part of a decade now with AS and it’s my view that it’s now the case with AoA. When it comes to your average NT American, censorship would only seem to be problematic when it’s one’s friends who are being censored, while that which helps promote the interests of one’s friends isn’t ever a problem at all.
Post a Comment