by Cris Italia

I’m not sure what you can call this, maybe some of the readers can come up with a fancy name for the war of words that will begin between Jenny McCarthy and Amanda Peet. On Tuesday morning Every Child By Two (ECBT) an organization created by Rosalynn Carter, former First Lady of the United States and wife of former President Jimmy Carter and Betty Bumpers wife of retired U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers, held a press conference in Manhattan to settle the score about vaccine safety.

ECBT was joined by actress Amanda Peet, Dr. Paul Offit, Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and Dr. Rene Jenkins, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics in an effort to combat what they deem as “inaccurate” information that oppose the current state of vaccine safety. Autism and a potential vaccine link has dominated media coverage of autism as of late, thanks mostly to McCarthy and her Hollywood soul mate Jim Carrey. After leading a march to the steps of Capitol Hill in June, the two have continued their media storm.

“I’m so distressed with what is happening,” said the former First Lady. “Recently our mission about the importance of vaccines has become difficult. As a result there is an outbreak of measles… People read misinformation on the internet, but it’s just not true.”

She spoke frankly and calmly and was backed up by statements from Peet who believes that vaccines are essential to every child. “I’m here because there seems to be a rift between the medical community and parents,” she said. “It makes absolutely no sense for parents to feel that there is this massive cover up about the safety of vaccines. There are people presenting this as a controversy when they shouldn’t.”

Peet has been in the news recently addressing her comments in Cookie Magazine where she stated that “parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.” After outrage among parents, she quickly addressed her comments in a letter published on www.cookiemag.com “I believe in my heart that my use of the word ‘parasites’ was mean and divisive; I completely understand why it offended some parents, and in particular, parents of children with autism who feel that vaccines caused their illness. For this I am truly sorry.”

On Tuesday Peet urged parents: “Don’t listen to actors about this. Don’t listen to celebrities about this. Listen to the doctors and scientists who know what they are doing.” Peet has agreed to be a spokesperson for ECBT because she was concerned with contrary information on vaccine safety circulating in Hollywood circles. As a mother of an 18 month-old, Peet consulted her brother-in-law a Philadelphia based pediatrician who worked under Dr. Offit. After her own research, along with her relationship with the medical community she made the decision to vaccinate her child and eventually she felt the need to speak on behalf of vaccines.

When asked specifically about McCarthy’s efforts to reduce the amount of vaccines children receive before the age of two and the removal of toxic ingredients in vaccines, Peet said, “I want to make this clear: This is not about me, I’m not in line with Jenny McCarthy or Dr. Offit. I’m a spokesperson for the data,” she stated. “I think there are some misunderstandings about what makes something toxic. Mercury is everywhere, but at what point does something become toxic? Parents shouldn’t just believe that because there are certain ingredients in a vaccine that it is harmful. You have to ask yourself what does a trace of mercury mean? Then get the right information so that you can understand why vaccines do have certain ingredients in them.”

Parents are encouraged to log onto www.vaccinateyourbaby.org to learn more about ECBT’s campaign.

According to sources, Jenny McCarthy is slated to respond to Tuesday’s press conference on Wednesday in Los Angeles. More coverage about ECBT’s press conference and their new campaign to come, stay logged into www.spectrumpublications.com for continued coverage.

Editor’s note: It concerned me that both Katie Wright, daughter of Autism Speaks founders Bob and Suzanne Wright and Jane Johnson of Defeat Autism Now were removed from today’s press conference. While Johnson was eventually let in, I feel it is essential that if the AAP, ECBT or anyone else wants to get their message out they need to continue to keep dialogue with the very parents they are trying to reach, open. While they may disagree with each other it is important that both sides are able to meet and speak to each other face to face. In the past I haven’t agreed with rally moms at the Green Our Vaccines march in D.C. booting writer Arthur Allen from covering the event and I stand by any parent who wants to inform the masses about what they heard from today’s press conference. They should also be allowed to ask questions and receive responses. If ECBT wants to educate all Americans they should start with the very parents that oppose them.

By Cris Italia

By now you’ve read all you can read on the passing of Pennsylvania Bill 1150, which ensures that insurance companies will cover treatments for the autism community. But like anything else political, it’s never without drama, snafus and controversy. With all the hullabaloo people forgot that the bill was actually signed by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and is now a law. So what was so bad about what happened? A little disrespect, some secrets and a lot of behind the scenes information that your typical Johnny Lunchpale isn’t privy too, angered parents in Pennsylvania.

Stuck in the Senate’s Banking and Insurance committee for almost a year this bill becoming law seemed like a foregone conclusion. Enter Autism Speaks. The largest and fastest growing autism organization in the world made no secret that this year their agenda would be to pass an insurance bill in every state. While they are no where near close to done with that mission, they viewed Pennsylvania as a gettable get. The legislation was strong, they had a champion in the House in Dennis O’Brien who just happened be the Speaker and oh yeah he has a nephew with autism. Seemed like a simple task right? Wrong.

As usual someone is there to stand in its way. For about 345 days Senator Dan White wouldn’t let 1150 enter the Senate floor because he believed the language of the bill needed to be changed (or he had to protect the insurance companies that contribute to his re-election campaigns, but you didn’t hear that from me). Faced with not having a bill in Pennsylvania at all, Autism Speaks decided to do the only thing they could do: Lie. Lie through their teeth.

Here’s what I’ve learned about politics, policy and lobbying over the years as a journalist. Lying gets you far. In this case Autism Speaks had a plan and only one option. So lying is acceptable. Pretend you are Autism Speaks for a minute and you are sitting in a room with Senator Don White.

Dan White: I won’t allow this bill onto the Senate floor as is.
Speaks: So do whatever you want to it, as long as you get it out of committee.
Dan White: Really?
Speaks: Yes, of course, you know better than we do. We’re just the largest autism organization in the world. I’m sure you’ll know better than we do on what our community needs.
Dan White: Sweet. (Suckers)

Now I’m not sure if that’s how the conversation went down, but it has to be pretty close. It’s so obvious what happened here. You don’t have to be a fly on a wall at Autism Speaks, all you need to do is look at the time line. Seeing no way out Autism Speaks figured: let’s appease the beast and give him whatever he wants. When the bill leaves committee it will go to the Senate floor to be voted on then back to the House for any final changes and a stamp of approval. Keywords there: FINAL CHANGES. You have to believe that Autism Speaks knew all along that these final changes would happen. In fact, it did happen. Once in the hands of O’Brien he went ahead and changed the bill back to its original form and it passed.

So, why the long face bub? Well, just like with any lie, you can’t win or save face. To take their lie to the next level, they had to not only tell Dan White to change the bill, they had to support it. When White made his changes, Autism Speaks sent out one of those releases where they say: Autism Speaks applauds Dan White and yadda, yadda. (I never understood those press releases when the word “applauds” is used. Can you picture the entire staff at Autism Speaks simultaneously clapping as the bill is passed by the senate? I wonder if that’s what happens. It probably starts out with one person clapping very slowly and then the build up. There should be video of that somewhere.) So, the downfall with going all the way with a lie is sometimes there will be people that are offended or hurt. In this case it was every parent of a child with autism in Pennsylvania, who saw Autism Speaks’ actions as appalling. How could they do this? Well they did do it and the beauty about a lie is that it’s your lie and no one else can be in on it, because if they are, your lie won’t get very far will it?

Just a day later the bill was changed by O’Brien and passed by the House and then onto Governor Rendell for a signature. No one could see the obvious that the sucker in all of this was Dan White. He was used and abused and in the end what goes around certainly came around. The right bill was passed and maybe now that he’s had a few days to think about it, White believes that too.

Instead of celebrating a clear victory for the people of Pennsylvania, parents remained angry. Those that were still ignorant enough to believe that Autism Speaks actually wanted White’s version of the bill to pass weren’t letting it go and those who figured out what they were up to, couldn’t believe they weren’t let in on the lie.

The bottom line here is Autism Speaks and the parents of Pennsylvania along with Dennis O’Brien got their bill passed. It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t nice and it wasn’t fair, but Autism Speaks did what they said they were going to do. What bothers me is that people are now saying they should have never been allowed to come into Pennsylvania and take over the lobbying for 1150. Autism advocates are saying that Speaks disrespected everyone in the process including their champion, Dennis O’Brien. My thinking here is, if you didn’t believe Autism Speaks could play nice then why did you agree to let them help in the first place? You know what they are and who they are, did you think this situation would be handled any differently?

I’ve been critical of Autism Speaks in the past and I’ve also been critical of a lot of different organizations, but in this case they did what they had to do to make life a little easier in the state of Pennsylvania. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with the way they work or not, they got it done. If you don’t like them don’t work with them, it’s really as simple as that.

By Cris Italia

I’m not about to proclaim that I’m a media expert nor can I spin a story for all journalists to cover, because if I could, autism would be front page news all the time. When I started covering autism in 1999 there was virtually no coverage of a growing disorder that no one seemed to understand. Autism was a side note in American society not to mention that coverage around the world was even worse.

The coverage of autism, unfortunately like the number of children being diagnosed, has been on the rise. From CNN, to Time Magazine, to the New York Times, every form of mainstream media has now covered autism as well as its link to vaccines and possible environmental factors. It’s not always pretty. Some of it is downright wrong, uneducated, unreliable and irresponsible journalism that should never reach public minds.

I’ve had long, frustrating and exhausting conversations with some of my peers over the years about autism and the possible causes. One thing remains clear to me: no matter how many times they get it wrong or right, they want to get the word out about the relevance of autism in our world today. There’s no excuse for getting it wrong and a parent has the right to be ticked off if they read a story in a local newspaper that is far from what he/she believes in or watching a report on the evening news that fails to mention mercury in vaccines as a possible cause.

The coverage invokes hatred and disdain among families dealing with this issue and the media. So what I’m about to say, I say with complete understanding with where all the underlying feelings come from. I also say this as a member of the media for over 10 years. Watching and observing the way the media was handled at the Green Our Vaccines rally in June was disappointing. I have the fortune of having access to some of the organizations involved that your everyday newspaper reporter might not have, so for me it really doesn’t matter how I’m handled, because 1) I’m used to it and 2) I’m prepared for it, knowing how pissed off everyone already is.

Someone recently asked me about how the media has changed in regard to autism coverage over the years. It’s gotten better. We shouldn’t forget where it was 10 years ago or five years ago for that matter. A large part of the coverage of autism and the links to environmental factors can be traced back to David Kirby’s Evidence of Harm and the attention he received from radio personality Don Imus. You can also thank Dan Olmsted and his work with UPI. Thank Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for writing “Deadly Immunity.” Thank organizations like SafeMinds for their work with Kirby and the initial push of a paper published in 1999. Thank the National Autism Association and A-Champ for their relentless media alerts and hounding of reporters. Thank Generation Rescue for their bold advertising in major newspapers and billboards. And of course thank Jenny McCarthy for being hot and willing to talk about her kid. She’s been able to garner more attention for this movement than anyone else can ever dream of.

I’ve been to autism rallies before. California, New York, Washington D.C., you name the place and I’ve seen thousands of parents shouting, crying and smiling because they wanted to be heard. The Green Our Vaccines rally in our nation’s capitol in June was an emotional day, to say the least. I can say as an outsider looking in, it was the fruition of all the hard work over the years. For the first time there was a very large and very loud crowd on the steps of Capitol Hill led by a Hollywood sex symbol, an Oscar-nominated actor, the son of one of the most respected elected officials of our time and of course the tireless organizations that put it all together.

It was a great day to feel good about something that everyone has struggled to deal with. You should never have to struggle to be heard. But when a horde of media wants to interview the two people that have brought them there, they should be allowed to. It’s not an inconvenience. When Jim Carrey has to step away from telling the world about autism just so that he can remind the crowd, “this is why we’re here, we want the cameras,” and his requests were unsuccessful, it’s not the way to go. A mob of people continued to yell at media members to get out of the way so they could proceed and when the media didn’t listen a countdown followed with threats of “we’ll run you over” on a bullhorn.

Over the years I’ve noticed the mishandling of press, and, again, I understand the frustration and disappointment with the coverage, but there is something everyone needs to understand. When Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey show up to promote autism awareness, let them talk to the media as long as they can. When Robert Kennedy Jr. shows up to a rally the day before the 40th anniversary of his father’s assassination, don’t put a limit on how long he has to address a crowd. Don’t in any shape or form give him the “wrap it up” sign. Let the media get as many sound bytes, quotes, angles, shots or one-on-one time as they can. The more they get the less of a chance that you’ll see Paul Offit’s name or Julie Gerberding’s rhetoric in newspapers the next day associated with this story. Because it wasn’t their day, it was your day. It was your time to finally have a moment and finally have the chance to say what was on your mind.

What was more offensive the actual word or the lies Adam Jasinski told before and after?

By Cris Italia

In February Adam Jasinski, the eventual winner of CBS’s reality game show, Big Brother struck a chord with the autism community when he referred to children with autism as “retards.” His comments immediately caused a ripple affect that left other people cleaning up the mess he left behind. The questions arose, should have Jasinski’s comments been allowed to air on national television? Did he have a right to say them?

Of course he did. We live in a country where free speech is allowed so if someone wants to say a derogatory comment about a special needs child, why shouldn’t he be able to? The same goes for CBS. Freedom of speech allows them to air Jasinski’s comments to millions, of course on an edited show, they can choose not to. Since Big Brother is in the business of ratings and getting a rise out of people, the comments aired, uncensored for the viewing public.

The “R” word has become more and more offensive in recent years, but honestly we need to focus on why Jasinski’s comments were offensive. It wasn’t just the use of the word, because a good majority of our society at one time or another has either heard or recited a joke about a mentally retarded person and if they haven’t then we’ve almost certainly used the word as an adjective to describe a mood or an action. The offense didn’t come when Jasinski blurted out the word, the offense came when he lied about who he was and what he planned to do with his winnings. Let’s face it: Almost a month after the season finale of Big Brother 9, Jasinski isn’t any closer to building a hair salon for special needs children than I am to playing point guard for the New York Knicks.

Jasinski told the world that he had worked with children with autism and that he was “around them all day long,” so that gave him the right to “call them whatever I want to.” Despite his ignorance regarding his imaginary license to use the word “retards,” he proclaimed that his reason and motivation for applying to be a contestant at a chance to win $500,000 was so he could do some good. Nearly a month later, the autism community, namely the organization he claimed to work for hasn’t seen a cent.

“One hundred thousand dollars to United Autism Foundation,” Jasinski bellowed as the closing credits rolled on the final episode of Big Brother. In a recent interview with Realitytvworld.com, he revealed his plans. “Eventually I would like to sit down with the families in the foundation and see (how we) can go about (it). It’s a huge tax break, so I have to figure out what I feel. Is it worth it for me to give up the money? Of course I’m going to give some of the money to charity. Of course I’m going to follow through with my word.”

Nearly a month later Olaf Hampel, founder of the United Autism Foundation (UNIAF) claims, “Adam (has been) out of the show for over 2 weeks and did not have the courtesy to contact me and apologize for all the drama and damages he created for UNIAF, many of our board members and myself.”
Since his comments, Hampel’s integrity has been questioned. The credibility of the non-profit organization started to fund programs in South Flordia has also been questioned. In his interview Jasinski claims he had no knowledge that he was fired from his position at UNIAF, but Hampel says that he had been fired five weeks earlier and had already taken a position with East Shore Productions, a production company based in Boca Raton, Fla.

In response to the uproar from the autism community after his comments Jasinski chalked it up to being a Freudian slip. “I heard there was a huge response to it. But it’s not my person to do anything like that. For people to even think that I would be talking bad or putting down (anyone with autism) – I don’t even understand how it got to such a level. I apologize! I mean it had to be a Freudian slip because that word (is) usually never in my vocabulary – especially with the job I was doing, and ultimate(ly), it did cost me my position.”

That position he clearly used as leverage to win in the final week of Big Brother. As he pleaded his case to ousted contestants in order to win their votes, Jasinski used autism again in his favor. He told his former housemates that he planned to do good and he reminded everyone that was his intention from the beginning. Still a month later, all we hear are reports about victory parties in New Jersey and his current home in Miami, Fla.

Was everyone duped? Sure. That’s the name of the game isn’t it? Fool people into thinking that you should remain in a house with strangers until you are the last person standing. He lied to everyone. He lied to contestants, he lied to producers and he lied to a nation of people that thought he was going to do “good” with his winnings.

Again we do live in a country where freedom of speech is allowed. He has every right to call a child with autism a retard and he has every right to tell everyone he’s going to donate money to autism and then not keep his promise. He got away with it in February, and he’ll get away with it now. He’ll also get away with receiving a fortune and leaving Olaf Hampel with the legacy of a disgraced organization. What else were you expecting from reality television?

by Cris Italia

He might just be a moron or maybe he’s autistic like his mother proclaims. Maybe he can’t control his behavior and stupidity, but one thing is certain, Adam Jasinski was able to outsmart, scam and outplay his fellow contestants on CBS’s Big Brother in order to win a prize of $500,000 dollars. The New Jersey native won Big Brother 9, Sunday night and proclaimed that he would make good on his promise of helping children with special needs.

The same person who stunned the autism community when he called children with the disorder “retards” might just be able to do some good for the people he insulted just weeks ago. On the season’s final episode after accepting his prize, Jasinski professed that he would donate $100,000 to United Autism, the non-profit organization he was fired from just weeks before his entry into the Big Brother house.

In a few days, after all the partying and after all the press, Jasinski will come home to find out what’s been happening since he was shut out from the world. He’ll find out that his comments in the season’s second episode about opening a hair salon for “retards” didn’t go over so well. He’ll find out that his words made the cover of newspapers around the country. He’ll realize that he hurt families and a community of people that work so hard to make sure their children are considered retarded.

He’ll also come to find out that the organization he wants to help is under investigation from the Florida attorney general. He’ll be told that his former boss, Olaf Humpel tried to exploit his 15 minutes of celebrity so that he could sell phony merchandise with Jasinki’s face and name for what is now a defunct operation. On top of it all, Jasinski’s dirty laundry has been aired. His arrest for marijuana possession in New York City and his lies about working hands on with special needs children.

It’ll be a rude awakening, but he’ll still be a half a million dollars richer. Will Jasinski make good on his promise? That’s the $100,000 dollar question. I think it’s up to the autism community to make sure he does what he says he will do. Where and when he donates some of his prize money will come in time, I know this community will be watching.

By Cris Italia

I think at one point or another we’ve felt the need to rebel against our parents.

Whether it is extending the curfew or getting a tattoo, listening to loud obnoxious music or dating someone they don’t like, at some point we make decisions on our own. What has transpired over the last several months between Katie Wright and her parents Bob and Suzanne Wright, founders of Autism Speaks, is not an act of rebellion. It’s an act of her own beliefs and responsibility.

Katie has spoken openly about her feelings on causation. She told the world on The Oprah Winfrey Show, she said it here and was featured on the cover of our last issue and she has told anyone who asks. She believes that environmental triggers contributed to her son’s diagnosis of autism. She has also spoken openly about her feelings on toxicity issues in our vaccine program and the connection of mercury and autism.

Her position on the subject has garnered a negative reaction not only from members of the community who are against an environmental trigger theory, but also her parents. After the release of an interview with Katie anchored by Evidence of Harm author David Kirby, Autism Speaks responded with a press release stating that Katie does not speak for Autism Speaks:

“Katie Wright is not a spokesperson for Autism Speaks. Our daughter’s personal views differ from ours and do not represent or reflect the ongoing mission of Autism Speaks.”

Ouch.

Did I miss something here? Last time I checked the Wrights created Autism Speaks after their grandson (Katie’s son) was diagnosed with autism. In the June/July issue of Spectrum, Wright says that she has volunteered at Autism Speaks, forming the Family Services Committee. For someone who is the inspiration of Autism Speaks and volunteers her time, is this the way she should be treated?

While I understand the need for Autism Speaks to remain objective on all issues pertaining to the causes of autism, telling the world that their daughter’s opinions don’t count on the behalf of Autism Speaks is wrong. Are we to believe that Katie is the only person among volunteers and employees at Autism Speaks who believe in environmental factors as a cause for autism?

If Autism Speaks is supposed to be the one organization that is trying to bring everyone together, which is what they say their goal is, then why would they separate themselves from someone who is trying to speak her mind? It’s not as if Katie’s comments are unfounded. There are have been several studies that provide evidence for her comments. I would venture to guess that out of the thousands of people who attend their functions or volunteer throughout the year, there is more than a handful who believe what Katie believes.

So it leaves these questions: Whom does Autism Speaks actually speak for? If they are not willing to support their own daughter, what gives anyone else a chance? Why should the whole autism community support Autism Speaks?

It’s never this magazine’s job to knock an organization or take a stance on an organization’s beliefs, but Autism Speaks boasts about how they want to be the voice for the whole community. With their comments about Katie, they’ve decided not only to single out their daughter, but also anyone else who has the same beliefs. That’s not the behavior the autism community needs. There needs to be more unification and less separation.