by; R.F.K. Jr and David Kirby
Read the full article here
Even as the evidence connecting America's autism epidemic to vaccines mounts, dead-enders at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) -- many of whom promoted the current vaccine schedule and others with strong ties to the vaccine industry -- are trying to delay the day of reckoning by creating questionable studies designed to discredit any potential vaccine-autism link and by derailing authentic studies.
On January 12, a cadre of mid-level health bureaucrats left over from the Bush administration ignored Federal requirements for advance notice in order to vote to quietly strip vaccine research studies from funding allocated by Congress in the Combating Autism Act (CAA) of 2006. Members of Congress had said that this money should be used to study the vaccine-autism connection.
These rogue bureaucrats -- members of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee -- held an unannounced vote to remove previously approved vaccine studies from funding under the CAA. Nearly all of the "Federal" members of the panel voted to remove the two studies, whose estimated cost was $16 million - or 1.6% of the billion dollars authorized by Congress for autism. The panel's civilian members, in contrast, voted nearly unanimously to retain the funding.
IACC's action to halt vaccine-autism research flies in the face of congressional intent. The bill's authors clearly stated that vaccine research should be funded. Even the esteemed Institute of Medicine has condemned CDC's methods. In 2005, an IOM panel condemned CDC for its "lack of transparency" in vaccine-autism research.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute study shows California's autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis and is likely environmental
January 7, 2009
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) — A study by researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute has found that the seven- to eight-fold increase in the number children born in California with autism since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted — and the trend shows no sign of abating.
Published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Epidemiology, results from the study also suggest that research should shift from genetics to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California’s children.
“It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a professor of environmental and occupational health and epidemiology and an internationally respected autism researcher.
Hertz-Picciotto said that many researchers, state officials and advocacy organizations have viewed the rise in autism's incidence in California with skepticism.
The incidence of autism by age six in California has increased from fewer than nine in 10,000 for children born in 1990 to more than 44 in 10,000 for children born in 2000. Some have argued that this change could have been due to migration into California of families with autistic children, inclusion of children with milder forms of autism in the counting and earlier ages of diagnosis as consequences of improved surveillance or greater awareness.
Hertz-Picciotto and her co-author, Lora Delwiche of the UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences, initiated the study to address these beliefs, analyzing data collected by the state of California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) from 1990 to 2006, as well as the United States Census Bureau and state of California Department of Public Health Office of Vital Records, which compiles and maintains birth statistics.
Hertz-Picciotto and Delwiche correlated the number of cases of autism reported between 1990 and 2006 with birth records and excluded children not born in California. They used Census Bureau data to calculate the rate of incidence in the population over time and examined the age at diagnosis of all children ages two to 10 years old.
The methodology eliminated migration as a potential cause of the increase in the number of autism cases. It also revealed that no more than 56 percent of the estimated 600-to-700 percent increase, that is, less than one-tenth of the increased number of reported autism cases, could be attributed to the inclusion of milder cases of autism. Only 24 percent of the increase could be attributed to earlier age at diagnosis.
“These are fairly small percentages compared to the size of the increase that we’ve seen in the state,” Hertz-Picciotto said.
Hertz-Picciotto said that the study is a clarion call to researchers and policy makers who have focused attention and money on understanding the genetic components of autism. She said that the rise in cases of autism in California cannot be attributed to the state’s increasingly diverse population because the disorder affects ethnic groups at fairly similar rates.
“Right now, about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones. We need to even out the funding,” Hertz-Picciotto said.
The study results are also a harbinger of things to come for public-health officials, who should prepare to offer services to the increasing number of children diagnosed with autism in the last decade who are now entering their late teen years, Hertz-Picciotto said.
“These children are now moving toward adulthood, and a sizeable percentage of them have not developed the life skills that would allow them to live independently,” she said.
The question for the state of California, Hertz-Picciotto said, will become: 'What happens to them when their parents cannot take care of them?'
“These questions are not going to go away and they are only going to loom larger in the future. Until we know the causes and can eliminate them, we as a society need to provide those treatments and interventions that do seem to help these children adapt. We as scientists need to improve available therapies and create new ones,” Hertz-Picciotto said.
Hertz-Picciotto and her colleagues at the M.I.N.D Institute are currently conducting two large studies aimed at discovering the causes of autism. Hertz-Picciotto is the principal investigator on the CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risk from Genetics and the Environment) and MARBLES (Markers of Autism Risk in Babies-Learning Early Signs) studies.
CHARGE is the largest epidemiologic study of reliably confirmed cases of autism to date, and the first major investigation of environmental factors and gene-environment interactions in the disorder. MARBLES is a prospective investigation that follows women who already have had one child with autism, beginning early in or even before a subsequent pregnancy, to search for early markers that predict autism in the younger sibling.
“We’re looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment,” Hertz-Picciotto said. “If we’re going to stop the rise in autism in California, we need to keep these studies going and expand them to the extent possible.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and by the M.I.N.D. Institute.
In 1998, dedicated families concerned about autism helped found the UC Davis M.I.N.D. (Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders) Institute. Their vision? Experts from every discipline related to the brain working together toward a common goal: curing neurodevelopmental disorders. Since that time, collaborative research teams at the M.I.N.D. Institute have turned that initial inspiration into significant contributions to the science of autism, fragile X syndrome, Tourette's syndrome, learning disabilities and other neurodevelopmental disorders that can limit a child's lifelong potential.
Original Press Release Here
(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) — A study by researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute has found that the seven- to eight-fold increase in the number children born in California with autism since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted — and the trend shows no sign of abating.
Published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Epidemiology, results from the study also suggest that research should shift from genetics to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California’s children.
“It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a professor of environmental and occupational health and epidemiology and an internationally respected autism researcher.
Hertz-Picciotto said that many researchers, state officials and advocacy organizations have viewed the rise in autism's incidence in California with skepticism.
The incidence of autism by age six in California has increased from fewer than nine in 10,000 for children born in 1990 to more than 44 in 10,000 for children born in 2000. Some have argued that this change could have been due to migration into California of families with autistic children, inclusion of children with milder forms of autism in the counting and earlier ages of diagnosis as consequences of improved surveillance or greater awareness.
Hertz-Picciotto and her co-author, Lora Delwiche of the UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences, initiated the study to address these beliefs, analyzing data collected by the state of California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) from 1990 to 2006, as well as the United States Census Bureau and state of California Department of Public Health Office of Vital Records, which compiles and maintains birth statistics.
Hertz-Picciotto and Delwiche correlated the number of cases of autism reported between 1990 and 2006 with birth records and excluded children not born in California. They used Census Bureau data to calculate the rate of incidence in the population over time and examined the age at diagnosis of all children ages two to 10 years old.
The methodology eliminated migration as a potential cause of the increase in the number of autism cases. It also revealed that no more than 56 percent of the estimated 600-to-700 percent increase, that is, less than one-tenth of the increased number of reported autism cases, could be attributed to the inclusion of milder cases of autism. Only 24 percent of the increase could be attributed to earlier age at diagnosis.
“These are fairly small percentages compared to the size of the increase that we’ve seen in the state,” Hertz-Picciotto said.
Hertz-Picciotto said that the study is a clarion call to researchers and policy makers who have focused attention and money on understanding the genetic components of autism. She said that the rise in cases of autism in California cannot be attributed to the state’s increasingly diverse population because the disorder affects ethnic groups at fairly similar rates.
“Right now, about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones. We need to even out the funding,” Hertz-Picciotto said.
The study results are also a harbinger of things to come for public-health officials, who should prepare to offer services to the increasing number of children diagnosed with autism in the last decade who are now entering their late teen years, Hertz-Picciotto said.
“These children are now moving toward adulthood, and a sizeable percentage of them have not developed the life skills that would allow them to live independently,” she said.
The question for the state of California, Hertz-Picciotto said, will become: 'What happens to them when their parents cannot take care of them?'
“These questions are not going to go away and they are only going to loom larger in the future. Until we know the causes and can eliminate them, we as a society need to provide those treatments and interventions that do seem to help these children adapt. We as scientists need to improve available therapies and create new ones,” Hertz-Picciotto said.
Hertz-Picciotto and her colleagues at the M.I.N.D Institute are currently conducting two large studies aimed at discovering the causes of autism. Hertz-Picciotto is the principal investigator on the CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risk from Genetics and the Environment) and MARBLES (Markers of Autism Risk in Babies-Learning Early Signs) studies.
CHARGE is the largest epidemiologic study of reliably confirmed cases of autism to date, and the first major investigation of environmental factors and gene-environment interactions in the disorder. MARBLES is a prospective investigation that follows women who already have had one child with autism, beginning early in or even before a subsequent pregnancy, to search for early markers that predict autism in the younger sibling.
“We’re looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment,” Hertz-Picciotto said. “If we’re going to stop the rise in autism in California, we need to keep these studies going and expand them to the extent possible.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and by the M.I.N.D. Institute.
In 1998, dedicated families concerned about autism helped found the UC Davis M.I.N.D. (Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders) Institute. Their vision? Experts from every discipline related to the brain working together toward a common goal: curing neurodevelopmental disorders. Since that time, collaborative research teams at the M.I.N.D. Institute have turned that initial inspiration into significant contributions to the science of autism, fragile X syndrome, Tourette's syndrome, learning disabilities and other neurodevelopmental disorders that can limit a child's lifelong potential.
Original Press Release Here
Monday, January 26, 2009
Autism Action Alert: Protest Federal Autism Committee’s Deceitful Reversal on Vaccine-Autism Research
Autism Action Alert:
Protest Federal Autism Committee’s Deceitful Reversal on Vaccine-Autism Research
Click HERE to participate in the Autism Action Network, Action Alert
The inexcusable actions of the Federal members of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) in retracting vaccine-autism studies must be stopped. Sound science must move forward, not thwarted by Federal agencies with vested interests in on-going vaccine-autism injury litigation.
The autism advocacy organizations listed below implore parents of children with autism - and all those who care about the burgeoning rate of autism and its toll on the health of our children - to take immediate action.
We are asking you to write a letter of disapproval to key government decision-makers on autism. Click here to go to our web site. Once on our web site or, if you are reading this on our site, scroll down the web site page for a sample letter and instructions on sending messages to our Federal officials responsible for autism research. Your letter will be sent to President Obama, your Senators and Representatives, HHS Secretary Tom Daschle, the Senate HELP Committee, Senators Christopher Dodd, Joe Lieberman, and Edward Kennedy, and Congressmen Chris Smith and Joe Barton.
Your letters are needed NOW. The next IACC meeting is Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - less than two weeks away!
Here is what happened. Click here (http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/iacc-blocks-vaccine-au...) here (http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/iacc-rescinds-vaccine-...) for more details.
In a highly unusual departure from procedure, government representatives to the IACC voted on January 14th against conducting studies on vaccine-autism research despite approval of the same studies at their prior meeting on December 12, 2008. The research was supported by numerous autism organizations and requested by IACC’s scientific work groups and Congress. The maneuver to re-vote was initiated by the IACC’s representative from the CDC and pushed through by the IACC Chair, Dr. Tom Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health of NIH. Review of the studies was not listed on the committee’s official agenda, in violation of normal committee practice.
Unlike most Federal advisory committees, the IACC is dominated by government representatives occupying 12 of the 18 seats. Dr. Insel admitted at the meeting that HHS agencies (which includes NIH and CDC) have a conflict of interest in conducting vaccine-autism research due to “Vaccine Court” litigation in which HHS is the defendant. Of the 6 non-government (public) members, 5 voted to retain the vaccine research at the January meeting. The lone dissenting public member resigned from her organization, Autism Speaks, the night before the meeting. Autism Speaks has issued a statement denouncing her vote.
The Federal members of the IACC must know that the autism community objects to their manipulation of committee procedures to block unbiased research on the possible link between vaccines and autism.
They must hear that parents demand reinstatement by the IACC of the vaccine studies that were already part of the IACC’s Autism Research Strategic Plan, and to restore the funding already allocated to this research.
They must acknowledge the inherent conflict of interest of the NIH/CDC in conducting research on vaccine safety. Research initiatives MUST be coordinated by an independent committee that includes equal numbers of representatives from the autism-vaccine injured community and conducted by independent and non-biased entities.
We also urge parents to attend the February 4th IACC meeting in Washington DC if they are able to. Click here for the IACC website http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/ to register. We encourage you to sign up to make a public comment at the meeting.
Autism Action Network (AAN)
Autism One
Autism Research Institute
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association (NAA)
SafeMinds
Schafer Report
Talk About Curing Autism (TACA)
U.S. Autism & Asperger Association
Unlocking Autism
Protest Federal Autism Committee’s Deceitful Reversal on Vaccine-Autism Research
Click HERE to participate in the Autism Action Network, Action Alert
The inexcusable actions of the Federal members of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) in retracting vaccine-autism studies must be stopped. Sound science must move forward, not thwarted by Federal agencies with vested interests in on-going vaccine-autism injury litigation.
The autism advocacy organizations listed below implore parents of children with autism - and all those who care about the burgeoning rate of autism and its toll on the health of our children - to take immediate action.
We are asking you to write a letter of disapproval to key government decision-makers on autism. Click here to go to our web site. Once on our web site or, if you are reading this on our site, scroll down the web site page for a sample letter and instructions on sending messages to our Federal officials responsible for autism research. Your letter will be sent to President Obama, your Senators and Representatives, HHS Secretary Tom Daschle, the Senate HELP Committee, Senators Christopher Dodd, Joe Lieberman, and Edward Kennedy, and Congressmen Chris Smith and Joe Barton.
Your letters are needed NOW. The next IACC meeting is Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - less than two weeks away!
Here is what happened. Click here (http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/iacc-blocks-vaccine-au...) here (http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/iacc-rescinds-vaccine-...) for more details.
In a highly unusual departure from procedure, government representatives to the IACC voted on January 14th against conducting studies on vaccine-autism research despite approval of the same studies at their prior meeting on December 12, 2008. The research was supported by numerous autism organizations and requested by IACC’s scientific work groups and Congress. The maneuver to re-vote was initiated by the IACC’s representative from the CDC and pushed through by the IACC Chair, Dr. Tom Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health of NIH. Review of the studies was not listed on the committee’s official agenda, in violation of normal committee practice.
Unlike most Federal advisory committees, the IACC is dominated by government representatives occupying 12 of the 18 seats. Dr. Insel admitted at the meeting that HHS agencies (which includes NIH and CDC) have a conflict of interest in conducting vaccine-autism research due to “Vaccine Court” litigation in which HHS is the defendant. Of the 6 non-government (public) members, 5 voted to retain the vaccine research at the January meeting. The lone dissenting public member resigned from her organization, Autism Speaks, the night before the meeting. Autism Speaks has issued a statement denouncing her vote.
The Federal members of the IACC must know that the autism community objects to their manipulation of committee procedures to block unbiased research on the possible link between vaccines and autism.
They must hear that parents demand reinstatement by the IACC of the vaccine studies that were already part of the IACC’s Autism Research Strategic Plan, and to restore the funding already allocated to this research.
They must acknowledge the inherent conflict of interest of the NIH/CDC in conducting research on vaccine safety. Research initiatives MUST be coordinated by an independent committee that includes equal numbers of representatives from the autism-vaccine injured community and conducted by independent and non-biased entities.
We also urge parents to attend the February 4th IACC meeting in Washington DC if they are able to. Click here for the IACC website http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/ to register. We encourage you to sign up to make a public comment at the meeting.
Autism Action Network (AAN)
Autism One
Autism Research Institute
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association (NAA)
SafeMinds
Schafer Report
Talk About Curing Autism (TACA)
U.S. Autism & Asperger Association
Unlocking Autism
TACA: IACC Rescinds Vaccine Research Initiatives
The Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee Meeting Rescinds Vaccine Research Initiatives from the Strategic Plan of Combating Autism Act
Statement prepared by TACA's Rebecca Estepp
January 16, 2009
What happened Wednesday January 14, 2009 in Bethesda, Maryland?
In a dramatic turn of events, the National Institute of Mental Health Director Thomas Insel, MD Chairman of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) called for a vote on a previously voted-on and approved decision to the Strategic Plan of the Combating Autism Act of 2006. December 2008, IACC approved two studies to address vaccine safety as it pertains to autism. The vote to reverse this previous decision was a surprise to the public members of IACC. It was not listed on the meeting’s agenda.
Who is IACC and what do they do?
IACC is made up of eighteen seats. Twelve members are government representatives and six members are from the general public. IACC is responsible for developing and updating the Strategic Plan for Autism Research under the mandate of the Combating Autism Act. They decide which studies get funding from the $940 million that was allocated to autism research under the Act. The two vaccine research studies in question totaled $16 million, less than two percent of the available funds.
What is the reason for the re-vote?
Ed Trevathan from the Centers of Disease Control (the government agency who promote the vaccine program) brought up the idea of removing the vaccine studies from the Strategic Plan. Dr. Insel agreed under the auspices of conflicts of interest since the Department of Health and Human Services is the defendant in Vaccine Court. Dr. Insel also felt that the National Institute of Health was poorly equipped to do vaccine research.
How did the vote go?
It was decided to reject the previously approved vaccine research studies by a vote of 11 to 7. Five out of six public committee members voted against rejecting the approved studies. The one lone public voice that voted with most of the government representatives was Alison Singer, former Executive Vice President of Autism Speaks.
What has been the fall out?
There has been plenty of fall out and this situation is only hours old. Autism Speaks has withdrawn its support of the Strategic Plan. They have issued a very good press release detailing the events of the meeting. Read it HERE.
Alison Singer no longer works for Autism Speaks. It gets even more interesting. The Autism Speaks’ Press Release was issued early in the afternoon on January 15th. A few hours later a new press release came out by Every Child by Two about Alison Singer’s departure from Autism Speaks. Read about it HERE.
Does this mean that Alison Singer will be working at Every Child by Two? That is not clear.
The Strategic Plan has lost support from Safe Minds (Sensible Action For Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders). Safe Minds is also asking incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Daschle to remove the National Institute of Mental Health as the lead agency for autism research. They have another request to Congress to get the repealed studies reinstated.
TACA supports both Safe Minds & Autism Speaks press release and response to the recent IACC actions. In light of the recent Mind Institute Study (Reference HERE) environmental research including vaccines must be completed as part of the Combating Autism Act funding.
Silver Lining?
There may be a silver lining to these actions. Dr. Insel brought up a good point, although, it may not have been his intent. Our country does need truly independent vaccine research. The department of Health and Human Services is the defendant of Autism Omnibus Cases; it is a conflict of interest in having them research vaccine safety. Independent studies are something the autism community must demand.
Alison Singer left her position at Autism Speaks. Alison was not friendly to the bio-med and environmental research community. With her departure, there could be an easing of the relationships between Autism Speaks and the bio-med / environmental research community.
There is also a feeling that the repeal of this IACC vote is tantamount to the 2002 Homeland Security Rider which briefly gave exoneration (it was later repealed) to the drug companies for injuries that occur because of vaccination. That rider was so egregious that it got the attention of a journalist named David Kirby. Look how that turned out. Hopefully we have the same situation here.
What to do?
The response plan is still being hammered out by many of the Autism Organizations. In the next weeks, we may have call to actions for parents, friends and family to take part in as this situation evolves. Please check the TACA website and E-news for more information.
See original press release here
Statement prepared by TACA's Rebecca Estepp
January 16, 2009
What happened Wednesday January 14, 2009 in Bethesda, Maryland?
In a dramatic turn of events, the National Institute of Mental Health Director Thomas Insel, MD Chairman of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) called for a vote on a previously voted-on and approved decision to the Strategic Plan of the Combating Autism Act of 2006. December 2008, IACC approved two studies to address vaccine safety as it pertains to autism. The vote to reverse this previous decision was a surprise to the public members of IACC. It was not listed on the meeting’s agenda.
Who is IACC and what do they do?
IACC is made up of eighteen seats. Twelve members are government representatives and six members are from the general public. IACC is responsible for developing and updating the Strategic Plan for Autism Research under the mandate of the Combating Autism Act. They decide which studies get funding from the $940 million that was allocated to autism research under the Act. The two vaccine research studies in question totaled $16 million, less than two percent of the available funds.
What is the reason for the re-vote?
Ed Trevathan from the Centers of Disease Control (the government agency who promote the vaccine program) brought up the idea of removing the vaccine studies from the Strategic Plan. Dr. Insel agreed under the auspices of conflicts of interest since the Department of Health and Human Services is the defendant in Vaccine Court. Dr. Insel also felt that the National Institute of Health was poorly equipped to do vaccine research.
How did the vote go?
It was decided to reject the previously approved vaccine research studies by a vote of 11 to 7. Five out of six public committee members voted against rejecting the approved studies. The one lone public voice that voted with most of the government representatives was Alison Singer, former Executive Vice President of Autism Speaks.
What has been the fall out?
There has been plenty of fall out and this situation is only hours old. Autism Speaks has withdrawn its support of the Strategic Plan. They have issued a very good press release detailing the events of the meeting. Read it HERE.
Alison Singer no longer works for Autism Speaks. It gets even more interesting. The Autism Speaks’ Press Release was issued early in the afternoon on January 15th. A few hours later a new press release came out by Every Child by Two about Alison Singer’s departure from Autism Speaks. Read about it HERE.
Does this mean that Alison Singer will be working at Every Child by Two? That is not clear.
The Strategic Plan has lost support from Safe Minds (Sensible Action For Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders). Safe Minds is also asking incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Daschle to remove the National Institute of Mental Health as the lead agency for autism research. They have another request to Congress to get the repealed studies reinstated.
TACA supports both Safe Minds & Autism Speaks press release and response to the recent IACC actions. In light of the recent Mind Institute Study (Reference HERE) environmental research including vaccines must be completed as part of the Combating Autism Act funding.
Silver Lining?
There may be a silver lining to these actions. Dr. Insel brought up a good point, although, it may not have been his intent. Our country does need truly independent vaccine research. The department of Health and Human Services is the defendant of Autism Omnibus Cases; it is a conflict of interest in having them research vaccine safety. Independent studies are something the autism community must demand.
Alison Singer left her position at Autism Speaks. Alison was not friendly to the bio-med and environmental research community. With her departure, there could be an easing of the relationships between Autism Speaks and the bio-med / environmental research community.
There is also a feeling that the repeal of this IACC vote is tantamount to the 2002 Homeland Security Rider which briefly gave exoneration (it was later repealed) to the drug companies for injuries that occur because of vaccination. That rider was so egregious that it got the attention of a journalist named David Kirby. Look how that turned out. Hopefully we have the same situation here.
What to do?
The response plan is still being hammered out by many of the Autism Organizations. In the next weeks, we may have call to actions for parents, friends and family to take part in as this situation evolves. Please check the TACA website and E-news for more information.
See original press release here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)