Gryffin's Tail has moved!

Gryffin's Tail has a new home. It got too hard to mirror to this site. I don't maintain this site anymore.

Subscribe via email will subscribe you to the new site feed. Below is an RSS feed of the new site.

To all my email followers, I've transferred the Feedburner address to the new site so you should start receiving emails again. I didn't know this page stopped mirroring until a day or so ago. I'm sorry you've missed out for the last few months but the good news is that I don't post much so it'll be easy to catch up!



RSS feed of the new Gryffin's Tail site



Subscribe via email to the new site

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner






Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Peer Review "Fig Leaf": Vera Hassner Sharav

The Peer Review "Fig Leaf": Vera Hassner Sharav


Vera Hassner Sharav
While the chief of the US National Institute of Mental Health this week stopped short of saying scientists are corrupt because of their ties to industry, as AP reported -- Vera Hassner Sharav does not give scientists a similar pass, partly because the testimonies she organized on unethical research on the mentally ill before the National Bioethics Advisory Committee in 1997 led to the shut down of 29 clinical trials at NIMH. Hassner Sharav is founder and president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a public interest watch dog group based in New York that aims to "unlock the walls of secrecy in biomedical research and to bring accountability to that endeavor". As a human rights champion, she has opposed experiments on children such as the EPA's CHEERS pesticide tests and pushed for a federal investigation into foster care children being used in AIDS drug experiments. She has appeared before various national advisory panels addressing her concerns about experiments on prisoners, about the use of antidepressants and the risk of suicide, among other issues. Hassner Sharav is also a former law librarian and has developed a database that tracks unethical research practices and the failure to disclose information on drug hazards.
I spoke with Vera Hassner Sharav earlier this week by phone about peer-reviewed science journals.
Suzan Mazur: Science peer review is regarded as censorship. That's the issue David Noble and I explored in my recent interview with him . . .
Vera Hassner Sharav: That's clearly not how peer review was originally supposed to work. Once reviewers are selected based on what's good for industry, they are not independent peers. But the process is so much more corrupt than even censorship. For example, Elsevier published propaganda favoring Vioxx as "peer-reviewed" inarticles in a phony journal paid for by Merck.
When reviewers are under contract and financially tied to industry, articles that get approved for publication, say in medical journals, are those that promote newly patented drugs or medical devices.
Suzan Mazur: What is the concern with peer review at the Alliance for Human Research Protection.
Vera Hassner Sharav: The concern is that this corruption of the peer review process leads to the promotion of defective drugs that cause harm and even kill people, whether it's Vioxx, Avandia, Zyprexa or the like -- toxic, dangerous drugs that were promoted within peer review. Independent scientists do not have access to the complete data on these newly patented drugs being promoted in scientific journals and elsewhere in the media. We should be able to ask authors for the actual data about which they are reporting.
Industry controls the process and the data, it controls the clinical trials, the selection and design of the trials. It controls what is disclosed and what is concealed. What gets published and what gets put in the so-called "drawer". Peer review has become a fig leaf covering up make-believe peer review. It's not rigorous, not independent and not honest. It's rubberstamp, paid for and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry.
The integrity of the scientific literature has been compromised. The clinical practice of medical doctors is jeopardized because physicians think these articles in influential journals have been vetted (i.e., peer reviewed). They then unwittingly prescribe to patients dangerous drugs that are being marketed widely. And people are harmed.
Suzan Mazur: With the passage of the Obama health care bill, do you see the beginning of a clean up of the peer review process?
Vera Hassner Sharav: No it doesn't touch corrupt practices at all. Obama health care is totally silent on this. The assumption is that science professions are policing themselves. But if science is under the influence of industry, receiving huge money from industry, then there is a disincentive to police.
Suzan Mazur: Can you tell me about the controversy surrounding the public being kept out of sessions at the upcoming American Psychiatric Association conference in New Orleans?
Vera Hassner Sharav: The American Psychiatric Association is having its annual meeting in New Orleans in May. Science journal publishers -- Wiley, Elsevier, etc. -- and pharmaceutical companies will be attending as well as psychiatrists.
Dr. Charles Schulz, chairman of psychiatry at the University of Minnesota Medical School, who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a paid consultant to AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, whose favorable report about the antipsychotic Seroquel -- presented at an APA conference in 2000 -- was contradicted by an analysis of the drug's manufacturer AstraZeneca, is holding a session at the APA 2010 conference: "How to help parents of a first psychotic episode patient". A parent whose son committed suicide in a clinical trial conducted by Schulz wants to attend but was told the meeting is closed to all but APA members.
[NOTE Schulz office 3/29/2010 email to me: "He [Dr. Schulz] has been thinking about her [the parent Hassner Sharav refers to above is Mary Weiss, whose child died in a Schulz clinical trial] and is glad she wants to obtain more information. If you wanted to provide her name and address, Dr. Schulz would like to send her his book on the Early Stages of Schizophrenia, which is published by the APA and has chapters about psychotherapy and family therapy.]
So the question arises -- if this meeting is geared toward helping parents, what is it Schulz is going to say that he doesn't want parents to know? This is serious. This is peer review at its maximum corruption. These meetings are a commercial circus.
Suzan Mazur: Is the public completely barred?
Vera Hassner Sharav: Some meetings are open, but it costs a lot of money that individuals can't afford. [NOTE: APA advises admission is $860 - $950 for non-APA members.] But the Schulz session is closed.
Robert Whittaker, author of the forthcoming book Anatomy of an Epidemic, wanted to attend last year's APA meeting. The APA didn't want to let him in. His publisher, Crown, intervened to get him in. Whittaker attended and recorded quite a few of the sessions. They were humdingers. What's discussed at these APA meetings is information that does not reach the public.
[NOTE: -- APA has emailed me stating the following:
"Charles Schulz's Case Conference is only open to residents. Case conferences are closed to nonmembers because of the clinical nature of the discussions and the patient confidentiality restrictions inherent in presenting cases. Members are bound by ethics confidentiality and nonmembers are not, which is why nonmembers are restricted.
A few sessions are only open to residents to allow residents to have a more hands-on experience with less people, but all other sessions are open to members and nonmembers."]
Suzan Mazur: Regarding Wiley, one of the major science journal publishers attending the APA meeting -- it's been around for over 200 years but apparently just became profitable in the 1990s. Do you have any insight into that?
Vera Hassner Sharav: What this shows is that when industry began to influence the content of journals by paying Wiley hefty fees, Wiley became profitable.
Suzan Mazur: Advertising?
Vera Hassner Sharav: There are many ways to influence publishers, but two things especially. Advertising is one but at least with advertising you know an ad when you see one. And doctors are perhaps less influenced by ads than the public. Maybe.
What is even more insidious is the articles that are published as peer-reviewed scientific articles facing those ads. The reports are promotional pieces, not independently and rigorously reviewed. They are masquerading as scientific articles. That's deception of the worst kind.
Suzan Mazur: You have a Masters degree in Library Science.
Vera Hassner Sharav: Yes.
Suzan Mazur: Is there a movement on the part of libraries to challenge this corruption?
Vera Hassner Sharav: No they have no power, no say.
Suzan Mazur: Do they have any interest in dealing with it?
Vera Hassner Sharav: I don't know if they've even been asked about it. The librarians have been pretty much bypassed in the information explosion age. It was their own fault.
Suzan Mazur: They have to know about the bogus information.
Vera Hassner Sharav: They simply transmit it. You ask for an article, they'll fetch it for you. And now with the Internet, librarians are used less and less.
Suzan Mazur: One recent open-access journal called Philosophy and Theory in Biology, "a product of the Scholarly Publishing Office of the University of Michigan Library and DLXS" has come under criticism as a reflection of the gaming of the system. Here's a complaint from an independent investigator whose article was rejected by the journal after 36 hours. The journal editors include a half dozen Altenberg 16 cronies (esteemed cell biologist Stuart Newman is not among them):
"But the most insulting rejection came from Philosophy and Theory in Biology, a relatively new publication (started in August) whose senior editor is none other than Massimo Pigliucci. It took his team of editors only 36 hours to reject the paper on the grounds that it was not appropriate. The science and math in the paper, unless examined by specialists in the field, could not possibly have been understood by the editors in that amount of time. . . . I don't think Massimo ever saw the paper, trusting instead to his editorial scriveners to do their duty. In an embarrassing rant, presented in two emails, I raged that not only was his journal the most appropriate one, given its stated objectives, but also his editorial linemen were stultifying in their ignorance not just of current trends in the biosciences, but of the philosophy of science and the physical sciences. . . . [D]espite his posturing as a man of science and a skeptic, [he] is an obstacle to scientific progress although chief editor of a journal alleged to advance that very thing." -- Gregory O'Kelly
Any idea how that library affiliation works?
Vera Hassner Sharav: I'm not familiar with that particular arrangement. But many of the journals have university affiliation. Little journals. . . . What would make a huge difference would be if academia started to penalize faculty members who sell their name and append it to ghost-written articles. Simply fire them because it's unprofessional conduct.
Suzan Mazur: Here are five questions I submitted to Wiley that they refused to answer. I emailed the questions to Eric Swanson, who is the Wiley point person there in Hoboken in charge of science journals I was told by Susan Spilka in their press office that Swanson was "pondering" responding. I assume he found the questions too challenging. He emailed the Wiley template on ethics via his press office.
"1. As one of the top publishers of science journals and a public corporation, is Wiley aware that the public knows the science peer-reviewed journal system is a major factor corrupting science?
2. Is Wiley concerned that science peer review is increasingly viewed by the public as censorship -- a way of keeping out the public, who actually fund science?
3. Why does Wiley approve of anonymous peer review of journal articles? There are complaints that too often when a paper is submitted that exposes the errors of science journal editors, the paper is simply rejected and there is no avenue of appeal regarding such unethical publication practices. A psychologist complained this happened in submitting to a Blackwell, now- Wiley psychology journal. In the case of your anatomy journals, there are complaints about a possible conflict of interest regarding what is acceptable content because many of the journal editors [and the journals themselves] are based on the University of Utah campus where the LDS church has a significant presence and a gene-centered approach to science is favored.
4. Is Wiley at all concerned by lack of operational financial transparency on the part of its science journals? For example, Wiley Evolution and Development journal editor-in-chief Rudy Raff told me each of his editors gets an allowance FOR an editorial assistant (he wouldn't say how much) but that the editors do not get paid nor do the anonymous referees. Raff says it's "traditional community service" -- but the public increasingly sees the practice as a gaming of the system. What is your response?
5. Does Wiley see a serious disconnect between its corporate board of directors who endorse the Wiley journal product and pass it on to the public -- but may not understand the science -- and the scientists who actually write the anonymously-reviewed journal articles for publication?"
Vera Hassner Sharav: The arrogance of Wiley is overwhelming. No Swanson wouldn't respond because to answer would put him and Wiley in jeopardy. Yet they have a public responsibility.
Suzan Mazur: Wiley's got on its board of directors the current CEO of Moody's and the former CFO of Dow Jones.
Vera Hassner Sharav: Elsevier is intertwined with pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline -- whose board includes James Murdoch and Elsevier's former CEO Sir Crispin Davis. The challenge is, the way the corruption can be halted is if under Obama health care reform, if the publicly-financed reimbursement uses its muscle to not reimburse for drugs where it has been shown in court that they were illegally marketed, that the hazards were concealed and the benefits were made up. Medicare -- Medicaid should not reimburse for them. If that would happen, things would change very fast. The whole system would be shaken. Cutting off the money is the only way to get out of it.
Suzan Mazur: What about the drugs being produced now that may be detrimental to our health? How do you stop that process? Are you in favor of revoking the Bayh-Dole Act.
Vera Hassner Sharav: Bayh-Dole is what started it by encouraging corporate-academic collaboration. By removing the firewall between academia and industry, academic ethics and the integrity of science gave way to corporate ethics -- which above all, seeks to maximize profit. Since academia is far too dependent on industry money, they won't police corrupt practices. Stopping reimbursement in health care for harmful drugs illegally marketed is the way to go. As government gets more involved, they'll have more leverage. When government Medicare - Medicaid stops paying for these drugs and it involves tens of millions of prescriptions, you will see change. Once you cut the profit margin, industry will have no interest. The cycle can't continue without government subsidy.

A little about LDM-100

There are often a lot of LDM-100 questions and sometimes the answers aren't easy to find.  I wanted to post to you all a question and answer that was given that I thought would be able to answer a few of those in one shot.  It's a great explanation.


My son and I are both using LDM-100 for over a month now.  In myself, I have been experience sore, (feels like sandpaper) throat, and somethimes just feeling drained like I'm getting over the flu.

(Name removed) is not much different than he was before.  At first I noticed his bowel movements became very bulky but normal color, texture (sorry for the graphic).  Neither of us experienced any rash.
We are doing 10 drops, 2 times a day.   I am a little dissapointed, as I expected to see more.  He did get a slight rash when I did a high dose vitamin a protocol a few months back, and sometimes develops a rash ob his legs when we chelate.  I was really surprised that he did not develop a rash from LDM-100 as the information I have read indicates that 90% of autistic kids get a rash somewhere between day 7-9.

I can't say I've seen any changes in cognition, verbal/social skill or behavior.  


The figure of 90% was back from 2007 in our initial group using it here in WA with our Herbalist. He monitored each child (would not let some go on it till he got them to a point they could safely detox on it). We had much more control on the readiness of the child to handle the detox, then they went on a pretty standard dose (which was about 2x what you are using). We started on 5 drops 2 or 3 times a day then upped to 15-25 drops 2 or 3 times a day depending on the child, the detox was all directed by our fantastic herbalist so the detox symptoms did not get out of control. Hitting it more controlled & harder we had a higher rate of rashes giving us the 90% rate with sometimes dramatic behavior/speech jumps. Even with this some kids did not child rashed, but his improvements on it have been slow & steady...I personally know some of the children that had the dramatic jumps, but mine was not one of them. One of the reasons we did not put dosages out when developing the LDM-100 Recap and initially supporting this was because we did not want people doing that high of dosage uncontrolled because the detox reaction could be to great.

In supporting this the last few years the dosages have gone down to allow for a slower more gentle detox. This allows the detox reactions to reduce, including lowering the chance of rash as the body can better handle the toxin excretion via the normal pathways not needing to expell the excess out the skin. In the same tone the initial quick dramatic results also tapper off to a slower more gradual improvement because the killing of the organisms is less initially....this reduced detox is easier on the body itself but the organism kill is slower....therefore the gains are slower.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that the LDM-100 is not just working on viruses, in it's cycling it's working on many other things (anti-viral/anti-bacterial/anti-fungal..that covers a lot of organisms). Depending on what the persons load is it could take longer to reduce. If they have a lot like my son did, it will take longer to bring down the load....I believe that is why I've only seen slow steady progress, because I'm peeling away a deep Bartonella/Lyme/etc layer that's slower/harder to take depending on what's at your core beyond just viruses that the LDM-100 has to bring down (& for us other things had to be brought into our protocol as well to tackle the deep detox layers) could be a reason you have not seen anything in just a month. 

(SNIP)...we also run a monthly Zyto to follow the organisms not relying on behavior alone in determining our detox success...periodic labs seeing the lowering of the organisms will also benefit in determining your detox effectiveness. Personal Note: after a few month of watching the organism movement on the Zyto I've gotten pretty good at pegging his behaviors to the cycles...just like I've done with the chelation behaviors to the metals we were cycling).

Also for you, I'd very much say the fatigue & cold like symptoms are a form of detox symptoms (very common form). Here's one of the better explanations of detox symptoms I have saved in my "greatest posts" spreadsheet as I've gleaned info from the groups over the years:
Detoxification Symptoms & Causes:
Some Possible Detox Symptoms
Clogged sinus, Constipation, Cough, Diarrhea, Fatigue, Fever, Flu-like symptoms, Cold-like symptoms, Gas, Headaches, Irritability, Moodiness, Skin rash, Stomachache, etc.

Also, as we said in our documentation, rashing has never been an indicator of effectiveness....especially if starting slow. We still see improvements, just slower. As I said I did not see huge wows behaviorally in the 1st month, or the 1st few months for that matter. We've been on the LDM-100 for 3+ years now, more on than off in our pulsing (currently we're on a base of the BLt which has LDM-100 in it, sometimes adding LDM-100 to the BLt base depending on what he is detoxing through). 

My thoughts for you are (I'm NOT a doc, just a mom):
Considering that you are on about 1/2 the dosage our WA group kids were on and only a month into it
-With you showing what I'd consider detox symptoms, I'd hold till you feel better then add a few drops & watch for more detox signs.
-For your son who does not appear to be having detox symptoms, I'd add a few drops now then level off for a few days to watch for detox symptoms. In going slow to add drops to a higher detox level & adding liver supports you have actually substantially reduced your chance of rashing and are more able to control the detox while building to a full detox protocol.
Hope this helps,

And to add more to this post, please DO NOT FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS ON THE BOTTLE.  It's much too high a dose, especially for children.  As this person explained in a subsequent post, the directions assume a healthy person is using it; it's for people with less organisms to detox and a healthy detox pathway.  Our kids don't generally have healthy detox pathways.

Biomarker-guided interventions of clinically relevant conditions associated with autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

(click the title link above to download the full .pdf)

Bradstreet JJ, Smith S, Baral M, Rossignol DA.

Altern Med Rev. 2010 Mar;15(1):15-32.

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity 
disorder (ADHD) are common and complex neurodevelopmental conditions. 
Diagnostic criteria for these conditions have traditionally relied 
solely on behavioral criteria without consideration for potential 
biomedical underpinnings. Newer evidence, however, reveals that ASDs are 
associated with: oxidative stress; decreased methylation capacity; 
limited production of glutathione; mitochondrial dysfunction; intestinal 
dysbiosis; increased toxic metal burden; immune dysregulation, 
characterized by a unique inflammatory bowel disease and immune 
activation of neuroglial cells; and ongoing brain hypoperfusion. Many of 
these same problems are common features in children with ADHD. These 
medical conditions, whether co-morbidities or etiopathogenic, would be 
expected to have synergistically negative effects on the development, 
cognition, focus, and attention of affected children. It is likely these 
biological abnormalities contribute significantly to the behavioral 
symptoms intrinsic in these diagnoses. However, treatment for these 
underlying medical disorders is clinically justified, even if no clear 
immediate behavioral improvements are observed. This article reviews the 
medical literature and discusses the authors clinical experience using 
various biomarkers for measuring oxidative stress, methylation capacity 
and transsulfuration, immune function, gastrointestinal problems, and 
toxic metal burden. These biomarkers provide useful guides for 
selection, efficacy, and sufficiency of biomedical interventions. The 
use of these biomarkers is of great importance in young children with 
ADHD or individuals of any age with ASD, because typically they cannot 
adequately communicate regarding their symptoms.

Shame on PBS Frontline's "The Vaccine War"

Shame on PBS Frontline's "The Vaccine War"

Dear ,

Last night, PBS aired a show called "The Vaccine War." I was interviewed at great length and in great depth about vaccines and my point of view and expressed my ambivalence about the polarization of this issue and the need for more calm reasoned discussion about the number one question that new parents have. I told Kate McMahon, the co-producer of the show, that there was a large group of doctors and others who cannot be dismissed with the facile label "anti-vaccine" because we still give vaccines and see a place for them in the practice of medicine, but we do not agree with the current vaccine schedule nor the number of vaccines children receive all at one time.

A few days ago, Ms.McMahon emailed me to tell me that the decision had been made to omit my interview from the show. There would not be one word from me. She didn't tell me that she had also omitted 100% of Dr. Robert Sears' interview. And that any other comments from physicians supporting the parents on the show in their ambivalence about vaccines or their decision to refuse all vaccines would also be omitted.

She left this as a show with many doctors commenting very negatively, very frighteningly and often disdainfully and dismissively about vaccine "hesitation" as they called it.

Below is my email response to Kate McMahon.

Dear Kate,

The "Frontline" show was disgraceful. You didn't even have the courtesy to put my interview or any part of the two hours we spent taping on your web site.

You created a pseudo-documentary with a preconceived set of conclusions: "Irresponsible moms against science" was an easy takeaway from the show.

Did you happen to notice that Vanessa, the child critically ill with pertussis, was not intubated nor on a respirator in the ER? She had nasal "prongs" delivering oxygen. I'm sorry for her parents' anxiety and very happy that she was cured of pertussis. But to use anecdotal reports like this as science is irresponsible and merely served the needs of the doctor you wanted to feature.

No one pursued Dr. Offit's response about becoming rich from the vaccine he invented. He was allowed to slide right by that question without any follow up. Dr. Paul Offit did not go into vaccine research to get rich. He is a scientist motivated by his desire to help children. But his profiting tens of millions of dollars from the creation of this vaccine and the pursuit of sales of this and other vaccines is definitely not what he says it is. His many millions "don't matter" he says. And you let it go.

Jenny McCarthy resumed being a "former Playboy" person and was not acknowledged as a successful author, actress and mother exploring every possible avenue to treating her own son and the children of tens of thousands of other families.

I trusted you by giving you two or three hours of my time for an interview and multiple background discussions. I expressed my heartfelt reservations about both vaccines and the polarizing of this issue into "pro-vaccine" and "anti-vaccine" camps. I told you that there was at least a third "camp." There are many doctors and even more parents who would like a more judicious approach to immunization. Give vaccines later, slower and with an individualized approach as we do in every other area of medicine.

What did you create instead?

"The Vaccine War."

A war. Not a discussion or a disagreement over facts and opinions, but a war. This show was unintelligent, dangerous and completely lacking in the balance that you promised me--and your viewers--when you produced and advertised this piece of biased unscientific journalism. "Tabloid journalism" I believe is the epithet often used. Even a good tabloid journalist could see through the screed you've presented.

You interviewed me, you spent hours with Dr. Robert Sears of the deservedly-illustrious Sears family and you spoke to other doctors who support parents in their desire to find out what went wrong and why it's going wrong and what we might do to prevent this true epidemic.

Not a measles epidemic, not whooping cough. Autism. An epidemic caused by environmental triggers acting on genetic predisposition. The science is there and the evidence of harm is there. Proof will come over the next decade. TheNational Children's Study will, perhaps by accident, become a prospective look at many children with and without vaccines. But we don't have time to wait for the results of this twenty-one year research study: We know that certain pesticides cause cancer and we know that flame retardants in children's pajamas are dangerous. We are cleaning up our air and water slowly and parents know which paint to buy and which to leave on the shelves when they paint their babies' bedrooms.

The information parents and doctors don't have is contained in the huge question mark about the number of vaccines, the way we vaccinate and the dramatic increase in autism, ADD/ADHD, childhood depression and more. We pretend to have proofof harm or proof of no harm when what we really have is a large series of very important unanswered questions.

In case you were wondering, as I practice pediatrics every day of my career, I base nothing I do on Dr. Wakefield's research or on Jenny McCarthy's opinions. I respect what they both have done and respectfully disagree with them at times. I don't think that Dr. Wakefield's study proved anything except that we need to look harder at his hypothesis. I don't think that Jenny McCarthy has all the answers to treating or preventing autism, but there are tens of thousands of parents who have long needed her strong high-profile voice to draw attention to their families' needs: Most families with autism get inadequate reimbursement for their huge annual expenses and very little respect from the insurance industry, the government or the medical community. Jenny has demanded that a brighter light be shone on their circumstances, their frustration and their needs.

I base everything I do on my reading of CDC and World Health Organization statistics about disease incidence in the United States and elsewhere. I base everything I do on having spent the past thirty years in pediatric practice watching tens of thousands of children get vaccines, not get vaccines and the differences I see.

Vaccines change children.

Most experts would argue that the changes are unequivocally good. My experience and three decades of observation and study tell me otherwise. Vaccines are neither all good--as this biased, miserable PBS treacle would have you believe--nor all bad as the strident anti-vaccine camp argues.

You say the decisions to edit 100% of my interview from your show (and omit my comments from your website) "were purely based on what's best for the show, not personal or political, and the others who didn't make it came from both sides of the vaccine debate." You are not telling the truth. You had a point to prove and removed material from your show which made the narrative balanced. "Distraught, confused moms against important, well-spoken calm doctors" was your narrative with a deep sure voice to, literally, narrate the entire artifice.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Kate. You knew what you put on the air was slanted and you cheated the viewers out of an opportunity for education and information. You cheated me out of hours of time, betrayed my trust and then you wasted an hour of PBS airtime. Shame on you.

The way vaccines are manufactured and administered right now in 2010 makes vaccines and their ingredients part of the group of toxins which have led to a huge increase in childhood diseases including autism. Your show made parents' decisions harder and did nothing except regurgitate old news.

Parents and children deserve far better from PBS.

Jay Gordon, MD, FAAP

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Yes, I've been neglectful...


It's tough being an autism mom. I haven't done well keeping up with this blog. But I shall continue to try. To be honest, I think less and less about autism as my son recovers. It's not fair to others that I would like to help but it's nice for me to know that autism doesn't take over my life anymore.

I would like to pose a question, what topic would you like to see me post about? Any burning questions? Something you don't understand? I may not have the answer but I'm sure willing to do my best to try...

Gryffin's Tail © 2010

Blogger Templates by Splashy Templates