Autism Diva: Autism Hysteria History -January 2005
30 July, 2005
Okay, wait. Does My Kid have Autism or not?
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 299.00 AUTISTIC DISORDER
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at
least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)
1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
3) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior,
interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the
following:
B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at
least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)
1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
a) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to
developmental level
c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing,
bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the
description, it gives the following as examples: not actively
participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary
activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or
"mechanical" aids )
(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language
(not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic
language
d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social
imitative play appropriate to developmental level
3) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior,
interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the
following:
a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in
intensity or focus
b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional
routines or rituals
c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole body movements)
d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:
(1) social interaction
(2) language as used in social communication
(3) symbolic or imaginative play
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder
Vaccination Fascination
Jake just had all of his shots for kindergarten on Thursday. We also did a TB test just in case San Mateo County would like to see that he is not hacking up a lung.
While we were at his 5 year appointment I spoke to his pediatrician about the whole vaccination fascination. I have looked at all of the tests. I have researched my child's actual vaccines by batch number.
Basically I think I need to send a letter to John Stewart (like this clear thinking woman did) I saw the actual interview.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is a little this, a little that. I need to read more about him, but I am guessing he went from nature to mercury to vaccines. What a nightmare. I am a mom who does not point my finger at vaccines. I wish I could be a conspiracy theorist... it would make my angst so much easier to direct, but alas, I have actually read quite a bit of the data (ironically enough found straight from links on DAN websites touting the theory) and have researched...I'm just not convinced that that many people could really conspire on such a widespread level. I always find it amusing that the same people who spew that the CDC and NIH did not conduct their tests in a scientific manner are
While we were at his 5 year appointment I spoke to his pediatrician about the whole vaccination fascination. I have looked at all of the tests. I have researched my child's actual vaccines by batch number.
Basically I think I need to send a letter to John Stewart (like this clear thinking woman did) I saw the actual interview.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is a little this, a little that. I need to read more about him, but I am guessing he went from nature to mercury to vaccines. What a nightmare. I am a mom who does not point my finger at vaccines. I wish I could be a conspiracy theorist... it would make my angst so much easier to direct, but alas, I have actually read quite a bit of the data (ironically enough found straight from links on DAN websites touting the theory) and have researched...I'm just not convinced that that many people could really conspire on such a widespread level. I always find it amusing that the same people who spew that the CDC and NIH did not conduct their tests in a scientific manner are
A)not scientists (although neither am I).
B) are the same people who use anecdotal evidence to support chelation therapy and various other diets to cleanse their children of Autism.
23 July, 2005
eBay Motors: Mercedes-Benz : 400-Series (item 4564918041)
I finally listed the Mercedes Benz. I will be so sorry to see it go. It is such a stealthy fast car
14 July, 2005
Poor, Poor Scott McClellan
I am pretty sure the song for the day was
that little diddy from Dead or Alive
This is an actual excerpt from the White House Press Briefing regarding, among other things Mr. Karl Rove
Read the entire text (words before and after...what follows is uncut)
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan:
James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:44 P.M July 13, 2005 EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: ...And with that, I'm glad to go to your questions.
Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the President didn't -- did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't give a -- express confidence?
MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President. This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.
Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again.
Q Well, why doesn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: He was not asked that specific question, Terry. You know that very well. The questions he were asked -- he was asked about were relating to an ongoing investigation.
Q But, Scott, he defended Al Gonzales without even being asked --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a second. I'll come to you in a second. Go ahead.
Q Yes, he defended Al Gonzales without ever being asked. (Laughter.) Ed brings up a good point. Didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was asked about the Attorney General.
Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.
Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.
Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --
MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.
Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --
Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.
Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.
Q You haven't even scratched the surface.
Q It hasn't started.
MR. McCLELLAN: I look forward to talking about it once the investigation is complete, as the President does, as well. And you heard from the President earlier today.
Q Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of classified information? What were the parameters for those consequences? Was it --
MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate your question.
Q Was it a knowing leak with the intent of doing damage? I'm just wondering when he talked about that, what those parameters were?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.
Go ahead, David.
Q Scott, when the President asked that question at Sea -- was asked that question at Sea Island, and, in fact, when you made your statement that Karl had had nothing to do with this, was there an ongoing investigation at that time?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been through this for two days now, and I've already responded to those questions.
Go ahead, April.
Q I'm going to give you another --
Q I'm sorry, I wasn't here yesterday, so could you refresh my memory? Was there an ongoing investigation --
MR. McCLELLAN: The briefings are available online.
Q -- at the time that you answered previous questions on this issue?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I responded to those questions the past couple of days. Go ahead.
Q The answer is, yes.
Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?
MR. McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --
Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.
Q This is not -- this is about -- this is a personal -- this is not about the -- I mean about the investigation. This is about the personal business of this family, an American family, a taxpaying family, a family that works for the government of the United States. And the executive branch -- someone in the executive branch let this family down in some kind of way, shape, or form. Is there any regret from the White House that this family was affected by the leak?
MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't change what I just said.
Go ahead, Goyal.
that little diddy from Dead or Alive
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
This is an actual excerpt from the White House Press Briefing regarding, among other things Mr. Karl Rove
Read the entire text (words before and after...what follows is uncut)
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan:
James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:44 P.M July 13, 2005 EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: ...And with that, I'm glad to go to your questions.
Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the President didn't -- did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't give a -- express confidence?
MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President. This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.
Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again.
Q Well, why doesn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: He was not asked that specific question, Terry. You know that very well. The questions he were asked -- he was asked about were relating to an ongoing investigation.
Q But, Scott, he defended Al Gonzales without even being asked --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a second. I'll come to you in a second. Go ahead.
Q Yes, he defended Al Gonzales without ever being asked. (Laughter.) Ed brings up a good point. Didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was asked about the Attorney General.
Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.
Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.
Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --
MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.
Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.
MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --
Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.
Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.
Q You haven't even scratched the surface.
Q It hasn't started.
MR. McCLELLAN: I look forward to talking about it once the investigation is complete, as the President does, as well. And you heard from the President earlier today.
Q Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of classified information? What were the parameters for those consequences? Was it --
MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate your question.
Q Was it a knowing leak with the intent of doing damage? I'm just wondering when he talked about that, what those parameters were?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.
Go ahead, David.
Q Scott, when the President asked that question at Sea -- was asked that question at Sea Island, and, in fact, when you made your statement that Karl had had nothing to do with this, was there an ongoing investigation at that time?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been through this for two days now, and I've already responded to those questions.
Go ahead, April.
Q I'm going to give you another --
Q I'm sorry, I wasn't here yesterday, so could you refresh my memory? Was there an ongoing investigation --
MR. McCLELLAN: The briefings are available online.
Q -- at the time that you answered previous questions on this issue?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I responded to those questions the past couple of days. Go ahead.
Q The answer is, yes.
Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?
MR. McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --
Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.
MR. McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.
Q This is not -- this is about -- this is a personal -- this is not about the -- I mean about the investigation. This is about the personal business of this family, an American family, a taxpaying family, a family that works for the government of the United States. And the executive branch -- someone in the executive branch let this family down in some kind of way, shape, or form. Is there any regret from the White House that this family was affected by the leak?
MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't change what I just said.
Go ahead, Goyal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
all writing by me © 2004-21 (unless otherwise noted)
The opinions on this blog are my own, and in no way represent the many groups, foundations and communities with whom my name may be associated.
The opinions on this blog are my own, and in no way represent the many groups, foundations and communities with whom my name may be associated.
Posts
