Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


DOJ covers the butts of business
November 27, 2002 2:28 PM   Subscribe

This isn't irony. The Department of Justice wants to deny justice to the families who have to deal with kids with autism I guess if you're a vaccine manufacturer, you don't want people to know that what you're putting in kids is gonna screw their lives up forever, right? That would cost you alot of money

If the Vaccine makers are scared about huge rewards for families harmed by their products, they should have made sure their vaccines didn't cause children to develop autism
posted by RobbieFal (43 comments total)

 
then again.. it was at least surprising to see this get on Yahoo's main page after the first source I saw it posted was Jeff Rense (even if the Article was from Reuters both times)

and what about that 'vaccine court'?

Heck, you can tie in the fact that people will be forced to take Smallpox vaccinations and that the Govt admits people WILL die from the vaccinations.

Lovely eh?
posted by RobbieFal at 2:50 PM on November 27, 2002


Agree with ideas and sentiment of the substance of the thread, but disagree with the presentation. This thread contains an issue that is compelling on its own, and does not need troll to make its point more persuasive.
posted by Bag Man at 2:59 PM on November 27, 2002


Bend over baby and take it for America!
posted by @homer at 3:02 PM on November 27, 2002


Vaccination is not, nor can be made 100% safe. So, what is guaranteed on one hand is that a very small percentage of people vaccinated will have traumatic side effects. What is GUARANTEED, on the other hand, is that WITHOUT vaccines, you will have VAST NUMBERS of people dying from horrible, awful diseases.
And isn't it a bummer that you can't have a perfectly safe world? Nor that you can't sue *somebody* because of your defective immune system or the fact that "acts of God" are inherently *unfair*.
posted by kablam at 3:06 PM on November 27, 2002


Studies show that there is no link between vaccinations and autism. On the other hand the Democratic liability lawsuit mafia has been fomenting for legal lottery bingo. See for example, cell phones and brain cancer, power lines and childhood leukemia and of course the most infamous, silicone breast implants and whatever you want to sue for.

Democrats should not be allowed to partake of modern medicine. That way lawsuits won't drive up the costs for those of us who wish to benefit at an affordable price.
posted by paleocon at 3:11 PM on November 27, 2002


kablam: exactly right.

The point of vaccines is to protect the overall population, not the individual, although the vast majority of individuals will be protected as well.


Paleocon: "Democrats should not be allowed to partake of modern medicine."

Huh? I hope to god you're joking. You're commiting a dangerous error of logic by both drawing an unfair equivalency between democrats and plaintiffs and by assuming that the majority of cases are frivolous.
posted by bshort at 3:15 PM on November 27, 2002


uh huh.. it's all the Democrats. Some devious conspiracy eh?

with Bush's less than steller record of stopping suspicion, acts like this will only increase the suspicion that something is being hidden.

Something has to be causing this. We'll wait for the studies you love to leave Denmark and take place in this country. The fact that studies are being supressed isn't gonna help anybody figure out what causes this. It will help some people keep a hold on their money.

The irony of all this is that if you want medicine at an affordable price, it will take medicine made for cheap by foreigners or socialism to make it much easier. Something that a paleo-conservative like you would love, right? :)
posted by RobbieFal at 3:22 PM on November 27, 2002


another thought:

wouldn't trying to supress this evidence and lawsuits evidentially lead to even larger settlements than expected in favor of the victims?

wouldn't that harm the companies that Bush is trying to protect even more?
posted by RobbieFal at 3:28 PM on November 27, 2002


[COREDUMP]

From the article, federal law specifies that these suits go to a special federal court (established by Congress in 1986 under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) before a civil suit can be initiated. The DOJ lawyers want the US Court of Federal Claims (which oversees the vaccine court) to seal the documents so that the evidence generated during the federal trial does not automatically become available in a subsequent state civil trial. The issue is not that the information becomes inaccessible, but that if the plaintiffs lose in federal court they have to regenerate some of the evidence for a subsequent trial.

The USCFC has judges appointed by the executive branch for fifteen year terms, so they're not taking campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. If you believe in a fair judiciary, they'll make the correct decision on sealing the documents, and a correct decision on the trial itself. You could argue that the executive branch picks political judges, but this is the system set up in the Constitution. The alternative is direct election of the Judiciary, or sustained election of principled men to the position of President. This returns us to the root of political argument.

[/COREDUMP]
posted by eddydamascene at 3:30 PM on November 27, 2002


Wow, this thread went from 0 to idiotic in 4 comments.
posted by solistrato at 3:38 PM on November 27, 2002


RobbieFal: "studies you love"?! Are you implying that there shouldn't be some kind of scientific indication that vaccines cause autism before cases start being settled in court? Or don't you believe in science?

Politics aside, there's currently no scientific indication that vaccines cause autism, and much of the linkage appears to be wishful thinking on the part of parents, it's easier to blame something specific than it is to accept that some things are just chance events. And even if there is a slight risk, better that than heading back to the dark ages of thousands of children dying from preventable diseases.
posted by biscotti at 4:25 PM on November 27, 2002


""studies you love"?!"

meaning studies that he has come to favor in his (Paleo) view may not be the final authority.

"Politics aside, there's currently no scientific indication that vaccines cause autism"

then why does Bush and the DOJ seal the records to keep them from the public? if they are so sure that there is no connection then all the records that are around shouldn't matter.

"much of the linkage appears to be wishful thinking on the part of parents, it's easier to blame something specific than it is to accept that some things are just chance events."

not everything is just chance. Can you be certain that every autism case is total chance? I'd say that if any are caused by vaccines, it's only a small rare group. But if that evidence is revealed, then something has to be done to make sure that the side effects are minimal.

"better that than heading back to the dark ages of thousands of children dying from preventable diseases"

you don't think the better sanitation, better water and better living conditions wouldn't matter and the diseases would spring back up to 1700 levels? I never suggested getting rid of vaccinations in the first place. It's not a point to be discussed.
posted by RobbieFal at 4:36 PM on November 27, 2002


"If the Vaccine makers are scared about huge rewards for families harmed by their products, they should have made sure their vaccines didn't cause children to develop autism"

Totally true. In fact, by that logic, Asprin should be taken off the market because of its history of GI bleed deaths (8-16 thousand deaths a year from Asprin :) ).

If Asprin makers are scared about the huge rewards for familes of people killed by their products, they should have made sure their Asprin didn't cause people to have sudden ulcers that cause them to bleed to death from their innards.

Fortunately, we don't need Asprin or Vaccines for anything, so it's ok, and we should feel free to sue away! Yay!

"People need what you make so you should make it better and safer than it currently is, but we're going to take it anyway because, you know, we need it." (paraphrased of what the poster said)
posted by swerdloff at 4:45 PM on November 27, 2002


I'd have to say there is a difference between Aspirin and Vaccines when it comes to how they are used.

but, I guess the fact that you can use aspirin alot more often than you can vaccinate yourself isn't important is it?
posted by RobbieFal at 4:52 PM on November 27, 2002


RobbieFal, if you want a discussion about your post, please stop self-moderating. Let some other people talk.

Just a suggestion.
posted by argybarg at 5:37 PM on November 27, 2002


As the parent of an autistic child, I don't believe that there is any correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism. All the same, the government's efforts to seal records is part of a trend developing where our system doesn't seem to think it's accountable to anyone. You can have responsibility or secrecy - you can't have both.
posted by pyramid termite at 5:57 PM on November 27, 2002


then why does Bush and the DOJ seal the records to keep them from the public?

Bush and the DoJ don't. Federal law does. The article, if you take the extreme measure of reading all the words in it, clearly states that federal law already seals the cases of all individually brought cases; the only new thing here is that it's sealing a mass of cases at a time.

Why are they sealed? You'd have to look at the Whereas-es in the applicable law, or at other points in the legislative history to be sure, but a first guess is so that, crazily enough, actual scientists can look at the data to see if there's anything that bears releasing or if it's just crap that would pointlessly panic people.

you don't think the better sanitation, better water and better living conditions wouldn't matter and the diseases would spring back up to 1700 levels? I never suggested getting rid of vaccinations in the first place. It's not a point to be discussed.

RobbieFal, stop talking without knowledge and go and talk to anyone who lived before vaccination was common. Ask about polio weather, and pools being closed, and empty suburban streets and half-empty schools because parents were desperately keeping their kids away from anyone else so they wouldn't catch polio.

In the 1950's.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:08 PM on November 27, 2002


"RobbieFal, stop talking without knowledge and go and talk to anyone who lived before vaccination was common. Ask about polio weather, and pools being closed, and empty suburban streets and half-empty schools because parents were desperately keeping their kids away from anyone else so they wouldn't catch polio.

In the 1950's.
"

and Polio has anything to do with this article, what the vaccinations were or what I said how?

Jump baby jump! jump to that wrong conclusion! Make it sound like he wants people to get polio! We have nooooothing else!

as for the Federal Law thing.. I apologize for not going over every single word in the article to avoid the wrath of some people. Next time, I'll read an article and look up every word in a 1500 page dictonary to make sure that I have it right.

I do agree with the poster that said this was part of a trend. Trends start from the top. The lack of accountablity came from the President, who, most can argue, hasn't been held accountable very often
posted by RobbieFal at 6:19 PM on November 27, 2002


Democrats should not be allowed to partake of modern medicine. That way lawsuits won't drive up the costs for those of us who wish to benefit at an affordable price.

only democrats sue?

I'd have to say there is a difference between Aspirin and Vaccines when it comes to how they are used.

for instance, vaccines stop deadly diseases while aspirin stops headaches...

I don't really understand why they chose to seal the documents, but you can't assume that means they had something to hide. If a clear link were scientifically found it would be printed in a scientific journal. It does make it look like the federal gov't doesn't really trust a jury to make an informed decision though - when it's little guy against big co, and the little guy has a bum deal and the big co has lots of money - well, the case doesn't have to be airtight. So it looks like the gov't is trying to make it tougher for people to bring lawsuits against products that may or may not have been tested rigorously enough.

The thing with vaccines is that unlike cigarettes or mcdonald's, they help much more than they hurt. It seems like real desperation to sue the makers of something that beneficial which has not been shown to have the negative side effect they can't track...
posted by mdn at 6:23 PM on November 27, 2002


jump to that wrong conclusion

Unlike, of course, what you did by wording your post the way you did without having fully read and understood the article to which you linked. And what argybarg and mdn said.
posted by biscotti at 6:33 PM on November 27, 2002


If there is nothing to hide, then why is the government hiding it? Sounds fishy to me.
posted by tljenson at 6:42 PM on November 27, 2002


Shouldn't all of the people that have benefited from the vaccine help the people that it harms? If a vaccine saves millions of lives but kills hundreds can't the million that live do something to recompense the families with losses? Or is it better to make vaccines optional and make everyone aware of the risks?

Mothering Magazine is convinced that there is a connection between vaccines and autism and has allied with Congressman Dan Burton to hold a conference on Autism. In this month mothering magazine they contend that that autism was not found in humans until vaccination was began. (Article is not on the web)

The CDC thinks vaccinations are safe.
posted by MaddCutty at 7:33 PM on November 27, 2002


Let me just second what pyramid termite said. My son, now almost nine years old, was diagnosed as being autistic when he was 14 months old. In the past eight years I have done much research, and I am also satisfied that the MMR vaccine has absolutely nothing to do with causing autism. It gets tagged because the the symptoms of the onset of autism tend to manifest shortly after the MMR vaccine is usually given. Blaming autism on the vaccine is pretty much like blaming snow on Thanksgiving. In fact, most of the current research points to autism being caused by a genetic predisposition combined with some (as yet unidentified) trigger during fetal development. Of course as the whole breast implant fiasco demonstrated, people can sue and win cases without a shred of real scientific evidence to show a causal link.
posted by Lokheed at 7:38 PM on November 27, 2002


Jump baby jump! jump to that wrong conclusion! Make it sound like he wants people to get polio! We have nooooothing else!

Well, no, your statements indicate a desire for people to get mumps, measles, and rubella. Of course, once that vaccine is shut down because of the lawsuits you support and the autism rates don't drop, obviously that will mean that some*other* vaccine must be causing it, since we established in the first set of cockamamie lawsuits that it was a vaccine, so it must be polio.

as for the Federal Law thing.. I apologize for not going over every single word in the article to avoid the wrath of some people. Next time, I'll read an article and look up every word in a 1500 page dictonary to make sure that I have it right.

You don't need to look up every word, only the ones you don't know.

But I think you do reasonably owe it to MeFi to not go off half-cocked without having read the article, which believe it or not does actually include reading every word.

I do agree with the poster that said this was part of a trend. Trends start from the top. The lack of accountablity came from the President, who, most can argue, hasn't been held accountable very often

Have you still not read the article? It's simple boring federal law, passed by Congress too, that does this. It's not some random fiat imposed by Bush or Ashcroft; it's a simple extension of pre-existing law.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:53 PM on November 27, 2002


If there is nothing to hide, then why is the government hiding it? Sounds fishy to me.

Because there are enough panicky fools out there in the real world will look at ``evidence'' presented in the trial and think that it means that whatever-it-is is a government finding, or a binding legal decision and keep their kids from being vaccinated to their probably detriment and to the detriment of others, and who aren't likely to evaluate any evidence the other way, or to consult the CDC, or do anything other than fly into a tizzy because WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!!?

In this month mothering magazine they contend that that autism was not found in humans until vaccination was began.

If that's true (and not just an artifact of only coming up with the diagnosis then), that would mean that it's *also* true that autism wasn't found in humans until space flight, birth control pills, widespread color tv, teflon, fiestaware, rock and roll, or the Corvette.

Correlation is not causation, especially with time-series problems.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:05 PM on November 27, 2002


In this month mothering magazine they contend that that autism was not found in humans until vaccination was began.

more likely the category "autism" wasn't defined until then, since autism isn't really a disease or a disorder with a specific chemical or biological make-up - it's merely a set of behaviors & abnormal reactions. Until like 10 years ago no one had aspberger's syndrome, or ADD...

medical science has been evolving pretty significantly over the last couple centuries, and before the 19th c., many many actually physically definable diseases were not categorized (partly 'cause we couldn't see the bacteria etc). In the 20th we've categorized basically every set of traits and defined it as a syndrome. Some of them are really unfortunate and deserve definition as disorders that hopefully can be treated someday. Others less so.

Anyway, autism may not have been defined until post industrial revolution / etc, but a) that doesn't mean it didn't exist before that and b) as ROU_xeno illustrates, there are so many new things in this time period to choose between when seeking something to blame. (Maybe it's just that geeky types can earn a decent living so have a greater chance of breeding & so autistic traits have a greater chance of showing up...)
posted by mdn at 8:30 PM on November 27, 2002


Correlation is not causation, especially with time-series problems.

Ayup. The rate of autism definitely appears to be rising dramatically (and this is an actual increase, not just previously undiagnosed cases being identified). There definitely seems to be something new that has been introduced into either the food supply or the environment in general. Unfortunately autism is diagnosed through symptoms instead of through anything like a blood test or other concrete identifier. Until researchers can identify what autism is (as apposed to what its symptoms are), identifying a cause will I think remain elusive.
posted by Lokheed at 8:32 PM on November 27, 2002


this is an actual increase, not just previously undiagnosed cases being identified

Not that I necessarily disagree with your post, but I question how the above is in any way provable. It's not like there's a blood test (as you state yourself), so it seems unlikely that there's any way to differentiate between an "actual increase" and an increase in diagnoses.
posted by biscotti at 8:42 PM on November 27, 2002


Any medication, herb, hell--food can have side effects. A country of people with polio or any other disease we vaccinate against is not one I would want to live in. Nothing in life is certain.
posted by RunsWithBandageScissors at 8:51 PM on November 27, 2002


(Maybe it's just that geeky types can earn a decent living so have a greater chance of breeding & so autistic traits have a greater chance of showing up...)

I forget if this was linked before, or a FPP, but it applies here again anyway.
posted by gatorae at 9:55 PM on November 27, 2002


Troll comments? Troll post. GIGO.
posted by dhartung at 10:08 PM on November 27, 2002


Biscotti - you can distinguish between a real increas vs. a diagnosis increas through statistics and other observations. Autism was first defined in 1943 by Leo Kanner. The diagnosis criteria has certainly been refined since then, but has not changed dramatically in the last fifteen years. Over the course of the past decade and a half the actual number of children seeking assistance from the medical and educational community has quadrupled. If you have spent any time around autistic children you will know that these sypmtoms cannot pass unnoticed by parents and teachers. School districts across the country are having to add special aides to cope with the increase in autistic children. In the state of California the number of children seeking social services has gone from under 4,000 in 1987 to almost 18,000 today -- and it is not the borderline cases that seek these services, it is the ones that very clearly meet the diagnostic criteria. Given that the criteria has not changed, one must either believe that up until a few years ago parents across the country kept these children away from doctors and schools or else there is a very real and troubling increase in the rate of autism. One cannot look back through the medical literature and find significant numbers of children in the past diagnosed with other disorders who exhibit autistic behavior.
posted by Lokheed at 10:44 PM on November 27, 2002


mdn: more likely the category "autism" wasn't defined until then ... it's merely a set of behaviors & abnormal reactions.

From Martin Luther's Table Talk: "Eight years ago there was a changeling in Dessau ... it was twelve years old and had all its senses, so that people thought it was a proper child ... when anyone touched it, it screamed. When things in the house went wrong, it laughed and was merry; but if things went well, it cried."
posted by raygirvan at 8:20 AM on November 28, 2002


We have the best civil justice system in the history of human civilization. The concept of having disputes resolved by a jury of citizens drawn from the community is one of the foundations of our liberty and freedom from anarchy.
No need to start changing it now. 9/11 should not be the basis to abandon the fundamental underpinnings of our society.

"Vaccination is not, nor can be made 100% safe. So, what is guaranteed on one hand is that a very small percentage of people vaccinated will have traumatic side effects. What is GUARANTEED, on the other hand, is that WITHOUT vaccines, you will have VAST NUMBERS of people dying from horrible, awful diseases."

True. Society as a whole benefits from vaccinations. When a small few suffer harm as the result of a program that benefits millions, the society receiving the benefits must, in some fashion, provide compensation to those suffering the loss. The companies that market and profit from the vaccine are in the best positions to spread this loss to the society by pricing the product to take into account the occasional idiosyncratic effect of the vaccine. The former federal program was a limited attempt to spread this loss even further. The new proposal appears to end the accountability of the private companies in favor of the limited federal program.

Vaccinations for Smallpox are going to kill upwards of a hundred people if given on a mass basis. Should a hundred families suffer the loss of their breadwinner without compensation for the rest of us in the form of a slightly higher vaccine cost?
posted by mygoditsbob at 9:18 AM on November 28, 2002


Lokheed: perhaps. I'm not yet convinced. I've been around autistic children, I'm a former nurse (not that I see what direct experience has to do with whether or not I accept that there's provable evidence that autism existed, but just wasn't called autism before it was described). In many cases autistic people might have been called "mentally retarded" or something similar in a world without a defined autism (in the same way as schizophrenics were). Now that we've defined it, we look for and recognise the symptoms/behaviours specific to/defining of autism, but before such things were known, it's not at all unlikely to think that they'd be ignored as idiosyncrasies or simply lumped into the wide range of behaviours those with mental illnesses displayed. Unless someone goes back and pores over tens of thousands of past medical records, I doubt anyone could definitively say that there has been an absolute increase in autism, rather than just an increase in those diagnosed as autistic. If someone has done this, I'd be very interested in reading what they have to say.
posted by biscotti at 9:23 AM on November 28, 2002


mygoditsbob: What the family that loses its breadwinner needs is not a tort action, but life insurance. The miniscule risk of dying from a smallpox vaccination is the same as the miniscule risk of dying from being struck by lightning, or hit by a bus, or any other unexpected death. We protect our families against this kind of rare catastrophe by buying life insurance.

Life insurance spreads the cost around to everyone (who has the sense to buy it), and it pays off relatively quickly.

Tort actions drag on for years. Up to 40% of the settlement goes to the lawyers. The outcome, unlike a life insurance payment, is very uncertain: the bereaved family may get a small settlement, a huge one, or nothing at all, based on the skill of the lawyers, the venue, the whim of the jury, and whether the judge's campaign funds were supplied by lawyers. (Tort settlements are twice as high in states where judges are elected, compared to states where they are appointed.)

It is difficult to imagine a slower, less efficient, more unpredictable way to compensate victims of vaccine injuries than the tort process.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:52 AM on November 28, 2002


Biscotti-
For your consideration, M.I.N.D. Institute Study Confirms Autism Increase.

Among the key results:

·The observed increase in autism cases cannot be explained by a loosening in the criteria used to make the diagnosis.

·Some children reported with mental retardation and not autism did meet criteria for autism, but this misclassification does not appear to have changed over time.
posted by Lokheed at 10:24 AM on November 28, 2002


Okay kids, nobody quite has the facts right on this one. I don't mind taking alittle flame to point out that pretty much everybody needs to look further in to this. The issue is not the vaccines in and of themselves, it's the use of a mercury based preservative that allowed for cheaper packaging of the vaccines. Instead of packaging vaccines as single doses, companies like Eli Whitney (who donated over a million dollars to W's campaign and at one time employed Bush Sr.) packaged the vaccine in bottles of 300 doses. Since the vaccines could become contaminated, they added alittle special something, mercury, to kill germs. Mercury and other heavy-metal perservatives have been shown to contribute to autism. Here's the real kicker though, this isn't just an extention of pre-existing law, it's a rider on the Homeland Fucking Security bill. In other words: it's another corporate give away at the expense of the average American. It's also a way to avoid the future litagation that would occure after the small-pox vaccinations start killing people - the small pox vaccine will kill people. Mostly people with HIV and other immunity problems. If your still reading my little rant, check out for further thoughts.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:33 PM on November 28, 2002


Crap. I mean "check out this article for further thoughts."
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:34 PM on November 28, 2002


According to a June 2002 article in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders that studied all kids born in CA over a seven year period, the rate of autism increased significantly. However, the article shows that this way of looking at it is probably misleading. The total number of children diagnosed with either autism or mental retardation (MR) stayed amazingly constant over this time period: 34.6 children per 10,000 born in 1987 to 34.4 per 10,000 born in 1994. Since the proportion with autism rather than MR had been small to start with, a slight shift in labeling causes a large increase in rate.

I commend the parents who've posted. This is a tough problem.
posted by Sixtieslibber at 8:42 PM on November 28, 2002


The complete California study.

Excerpted from the results:
"Has the increase in cases of autism been created artificially by having "missed" the diagnosis in the past, and instead reporting autistic children as "mentally retarded?" This explanation was not supported by our data.

In our sample of children with mental retardation (MR) we did find that 18%-19% met DSM-IV criteria for autism. However, this percentage was consistent in the two birth cohorts. So, while misclassification occurs, children were not disproportionately misclassified in the past compared with the present. We might have attributed some percentage of the rise in autism cases to misclassification if we had found a difference between the two age groups, but we did not find a difference. In the aforementioned Regional Center record review study, the researchers found misclassification in 10% of the older MR cohort but in only 3.9% of the younger MR cohort. They interpreted these results to mean that the reliability of the CDER diagnoses of MR for children qualifying for Regional Center services had changed during the study period. However, the Regional Center record would have documentation of autism only when an autism diagnosis was considered. In our study, there were some cases of children in the MR group who met DSM-IV criteria for autism even though their CDER records did not record a CDER status I autism diagnosis. There were other children in this study group whose Regional Center record would not have supported this diagnosis. Thus, a record review alone may result in an undercount of misclassification compared with active screening. Our findings, based on screening for autistic spectrum disorders with the SCQ and verifying an autism diagnosis with the ADI-R, are in contrast to their results."

So in other words, there was not a "slight shift in labeling" as was presumed by an earlier study. I have not read the article you mentioned, and I am open to different perspectives. I place more weight, however, in a in-depth study such as this one over a simple count of combined MR and autism cases. I will look up that article, though. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
posted by Lokheed at 11:09 PM on November 28, 2002


ElwoodWiles got it right. This was one of the sneaky last minute riders to the Homeland Security Act. It is about the mercury preservative, not the vaccine. It was intended protect Eli Lilly (great return on the "campaign contributions" investment.)

If the case for Lilly had ANY merit it would have not been necessary to sneak this rider through. You can be sure Lilly has adequate legal representation to beat this in the courts (for a lower price, lawyers are cheaper than politicians these days) if they had a case.

The secrecy thing is just one more brick in the wall of government secrecy as of late. Surely I need not expand on the preceding statement?
posted by nofundy at 5:19 AM on November 29, 2002


One more thing. There's a weblog that deals with autism that many may find useful, especially those who have children with autism.
posted by nofundy at 5:25 AM on November 29, 2002


« Older Henry Kissinger has been named head of the "indepe...  |  The White Cube Gallery's curre... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments