Original content and news about the autism epidemic from the perspective that autism is treatable. Anaylsis of current media treatment of autism and the environmental causes of autism.
The official pub date is Feb 3, but Dan and Mark's book is available on Amazon now. (We're already a best seller in Immunology!) Get it, give it, add a review and scare the medical industrial establishment silly ... "Every...
By Jake Crosby
That's what millionaire vaccine industrialist
said to me following a talk he gave at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology, endowed by Merck. But that was not the only abusive thing he said to me. He also called me stupid, lied that I don't have Asperger Syndrome and labeled me with a new diagnosis after again calling me a stalker.
Offit's talk was part of Penn's Microbiology Seminar Series sponsored by PENN Infectious Diseases. It was titled “Rotavirus Vaccines: From Bench to Bedside.” Throughout the lecture, he talked about the different rotavirus vaccines: RotaTeq, Rotarix and RotaShield – the vaccine pulled for causing intussusception, which is a potentially fatal condition in which the intestine turns inside-out. He even discussed how he was going to lobby to bring back RotaShield in 2000, but that it was already too late and he blamed the harm to RotaShield's reputation on the ensuing controversy over mercury in vaccines. Offit also admitted that his own vaccine, RotaTeq, can cause intussusception.
I was especially surprised to hear him reveal an insight about pharmaceutical executives putting money before health:
“You never say at a pharmaceutical conference, 'it's the right thing to do.'”
At the conclusion of his talk came the Q/A session. When the moderator finally called on me, I asked:
“Hi Dr. Offit,
You didn't talk about your involvement in approving RotaShield. You told an autism parent you did not get to vote the rotavirus vaccine onto the schedule, but you voted for it three times leading up to the CDC's decision to adopt your committee's recommendation into its schedule. So how could you say you did not vote it onto the infant schedule when you clearly did?”
Offit sneered at my question and then snickered and shook his head when I mentioned the autism parent.
He replied:
“Jake! How are you buddy?”
“I'm fine.”
“Ladies and gentleman, this is Jake Crosby – my stalker!”
I called him out, “That's libel!”
Someone then shouted from the audience, “Are you serious?”
So I said, “This is constitutionally-protected free speech and a public event.”
“Oh really,” Offit said sarcastically.
But then surprisingly, he attempted to answer my question:
“I did not participate in the first vote to get Rotashield onto the schedule. I did participate in the vote to get it into the Vaccines For Children program [free vaccines], among other votes. Prior to my voting, I consulted the chair Dr. John Modlin [who is also conflicted with Merck, and was reprimanded for it by Congress], and he said it was okay that I participated. So I did because I was not working on a competing vaccine at the time. Ours was still many years away from completion.”
“But you were still...”
I was going to tell him that he was still working on a competing vaccine and that he still voted RotaShield onto the schedule, but the moderator cut me off:
“Let's continue talking about this afterward.”
Offit said, with a big grin:
“Oh, we can talk about this endlessly.”
Though we did talk after his lecture, it would not be about RotaShield.
Then another graduate student asked a question. While calling people like Donald Trump “idiots,” he said there are some people who have legitimate questions about vaccine safety and wanted to know how to engage those people.
Offit replied:
“You have to use reason! But there are some people who will never stop believing,” gesturing toward me.
At the end of the talk, the woman sitting next to me asked:
“So who in your family has autism?”
Paul Offit beckoned me to the podium with his finger and then I made my way down the aisle.
When I reached the podium, I said:
“You call me a stalker and then you tell me you want to speak to me.”
He extended his hand, wanting me to shake it.
I hesitated.
He asked with a big smirk, “Aren't you gonna shake my hand?”
“I think it would be better to not shake your hand since you've complained of receiving physical threats,” I told him.
“Shake my hand Jake,” he insisted.
“No, I won't.”
He then lost his temper very quickly.
“You vilify me online! You call me names! You say things about me that are false! You question my motives and claim I am doing this for money! I am not doing this for money, I do this to help children! You call me a millionaire vaccine industrialist! You have to stop!”
“I represent you fairly and accurately.”
“No you don't! You write about my motives! How could you possibly know what my motives are?! You don't know my motives! You don't know my motives!”
“I write about you only based on what you do and what you say.”
“No you don't! You call me a millionaire vaccine industrialist! How am I a millionaire vaccine industrialist?!”
“You made millions of dollars from the vaccine industry.”
“Millionaire vaccine industrialist implies motive! How could you be so stupid to not see that?!”
“It means someone who's made millions of dollars from the vaccine industry.”
“And how am I an industrialist?! Should I not have gone to a pharmaceutical company?! Should I have made the vaccine in my garage?!”
“No, but it didn't matter where it was made. It's still a conflict of interest with the vaccine industry.”
His fury only escalated.
“What are my motives?! What are my motives?!”
He continued pointing at me, shouting. I continued moving back and he continued to move forward, seemingly wanting to physically intimidate me.
He yelled:
“WHAT ARE MY MOTIVES?! WHAT ARE MY MOTIVES?!”
I put my hands up, trying to calm him:
“Easy, easy,” I said.
“WHAT ARE MY MOTIVES?! Tell me what you think my motives are!!!”
“Your motives are that you enjoy working on rotavirus vaccine development as you said at the NIH talk, and also for the money...”
“NO!! I do NOT do this for the money! That is wrong!!”
“You told American Medical News that protection from vaccine litigation improves vaccine industry profits. That's making money off the backs of vaccine-injured children.”
Here is the exact line, from American Medical News, 2008:
But other advantages to vaccine production have become increasingly evident, Dr. Offit noted. &There is a fairly beaten path in how to make them, and there is, to some extent, protection from liability in children's vaccines,& he said.
But he continued the abuse:
“No, that is bullshit! I don't do this for the money! Get out of here!”
And then he said:
“Get the fuck out of here! Piece of shit!”
He gestured to the door in a fashion similar to what he did .
Stunned, I walked over to the moderator, introduced myself and asked his name, shaking his hand.
He replied, “Harvey Friedman.”
I commented on how appalled I was at Offit's behavior.
He agreed with me that it was not right but also said, “this is not the right forum.”
I can't imagine what is. Then Paul Offit approached me again and continued to go at it:
“You owe me an apology!”
“You owe me an apology for telling me to get the fuck out of here and calling me a piece of shit!”
Of course, those aren't the only things he owes me an apology for.
“Fine, I'm sorry! I'm sorry, now you apologize to me!”
“I'm not going to apologize to you for representing you accurately.”
“No, you do not represent me accurately!”
Then someone came up to him and said:
“He doesn't l he has Asperger's.”
Then Paul Offit attempted to undiagnose me:
“No, he doesn't have Asperger's; he's got paranoid schizophrenia is what he has!”
I was stunned.
Attempting to defuse the situation, the moderator then introduced me to the graduate student who asked the question after me during Q/A.
We walked out of the auditorium to a nearby Au Bon Pain restaurant. As we were walking, he told me his name was Jonathan. I didn' he said it too fast. He did say he was involved in vaccine research.
But I was still shaken up by what just happened:
“How could you listen to that evil man? How could you listen to him spread his lies on television and in print?”
He agreed with me that what Offit said to me was wrong, but added that I “clearly agitated him.”
I told him that Paul Offit knowingly cites tobacco science and that Institute of Medicine of which he is a member said it would never come down that autism is a true side-effect of vaccination in a meeting that led up to the 2004 IOM Report.
Jonathan told me he never heard of the report – the bible for today's vaccine injury deniers! I brought up
on the IOM's preconceived position on autism and vaccines that, “...we will never come down that it is a true side-effect...”
“So you're saying they already came to a conclusion before looking at any evidence?”
“Well, IOM has done a lot of good things, but they are not an ancient organization. They also have some major flaws.”
I asked him:
“What was your name again?”
“I told you my name already.”
“I didn't get your last name.”
He quickly tried to change the subject:
“Let's go inside and get some coffee,” referring to the Au Bon Pain restaurant we were right outside of.
After we went in, I had the displeasure of coming across the man who Paul Offit told I did not have Asperger Syndrome, but “paranoid schizophrenia.”
After telling me he read my writing, he commented:
“I think you're a liar and I think you're despicable.”
As I was writing down what he told me, he said:
“Off the record.”
“Too late,” I said back.
He sat down with Jonathan and me. His name was Jeff Bergelson.
“Dr. Jeff Bergelson,” he emphasized to me.
Then again:
“Prof. Jeff Bergelson.”
“I'm glad you're not my professor,” I told him.
“I think that feeling is mutual,” Jonathan observed.
After listening to Offit's abuse, I then had to put up with Bergelson's rant.
“Age of Autism is nothing but complete bunkum!”
He said this many times.
“I don't know if you are completely misguided or lying, but your writing is complete bunkum!”
“How is it 'bunkum,'” I asked him multiple times before he finally gave some examples, but they weren't much more specific:
“It is anti-vaccine!”
“No, it isn't!”
“You advocate treating autism with nutrients!”
“And people have improved from that,” I said, myself included.
“You advocate homeopathy for autism!”
“Well, I don't advocate that.” I think the one time that I brought up homeopathy was when I quoted
of all people talking about how much it has helped his autistic daughter.
“Homeopathy is complete and utter bunkum!”
I turned to Jonathan and asked: “Do I need to hear this after what I just put up with from Offit?”
Jonathan replied, “I think it's important.”
I brought up Offit's abuse, but Bergelson went on “What Paul Offit said to you was wrong, but the things you say about Paul Offit online are bunkum! He's done more for public health than everyone else in this room combined!”
“No, he has not.”
“Oh C'mon! I'm just expressing my views about Paul Offit! You'd probably say the same about Andrew Wakefield!”
“Well, you're right about that.”
But he then went on to say:
“Andrew Wakefield's work is a load of bunkum!&
Jonathan, who was mostly quiet during this exchange, said “He did do it for money.”
“No, he didn't,” I said, “he donated that money to a project to build a new GI clinic for sick children.”
Bergelson went on about Desiree Jennings, “that crazy lady who claimed she got hurt by a flu shot! I know people who wouldn't get vaccinated against influenza because of her!”
“She did get hurt after it, she got dystonia!”
“She did not have dystonia!”
“Watch the videos of her!”
“She did not get dystonia! It's a load of bunkum!”
At one point, I asked Bergelson if he can tone down his voice.
His excuse?
“I'm a Jew! I make big hand gestures!”
I was not commenting on his hand gestures, but his volume. Regardless, I was shocked that he used being Jewish to excuse his bad behavior. I am sure my maternal grandfather – who passed away last November and was Jewish – would have been disgusted by this.
Perhaps realizing his mistake, Bergelson quickly changed the subject to my great great grandfather, :
“And I'm sorry your grandfather went down on the Titanic!”
“Great great grandfather,” I corrected him.
“Great great grandfather,” he reiterated.
“Thank you,” I said.
Suddenly, Paul Offit showed up attempting to “apologize” again:
“I'm sorry for what I said, I hope you can forgive me.”
“Okay,” I said back, not that I forgive him, but that I hear him.
Offit left and then returned yet again, angrily apologizing “I'm sorry! Okay? I'm sorry!” That was probably when he realized the full extent of what he had done and how it could damage his reputation.
I just wanted him to go away, “okay!”
After bidding a happy farewell to Bergelson and his “bunkum” rants, I went outside with Jonathan and we continued our conversation. We walked to the train station while discussing Offit's rant about me.
I complained about how Paul Offit was probably hiding something by the crazed, angry way he was acting.
Jonathan said, “Well, that's one way to look at it, but not the only way.”
I told him:
“Watch the video online of
and compare how he deals with critical questioners with what Paul Offit said to me today, and you'll find a stark difference.”
Jonathan promised he would.
As we walked to the train station, we had a somewhat interesting talk – about how breast feeding has an inverse association with autism, about what we thought were the top three public health issues facing the world (I said they were chronic illnesses, living conditions and health disparities), and about his participation in the never-ending quest for an HIV vaccine. I told him HIV discoverer
would be speaking at the AutismOne conference later this month.
As we were approaching the train station, I told Jonathan that , having made an oxymoronic statement on Medscape about a compensated ca Offit remarked that a case of measles encephalopathy can fall in the autism spectrum without being autism (even though a disorder that falls within the autism spectrum, by definition, would be autism).
“So how do you define autism?”
I said, “Any collection of behaviors that would fall within the autism spectrum”
Then he asked me, “And you had the MMR?”
“Yes,” I said.
“Well, I had the MMR and I'm not autistic,” he said.
“That's because it only causes autism in certain susceptible people,” I told him.
As we were entering the station, he rehashed the fact that I call Paul Offit a millionaire vaccine industrialist by comparing him to Jonas Salk, inventor of the first effective polio vaccine:
“You know, you could argue Jonas Salk was a millionaire vaccine industrialist.”
was one of Jonathan's big heroes. Until fairly recently, I had been on the fence about Salk. Then I heard that he experimented on some disabled patients, giving them an experimental flu vaccine and then exposing them to the flu. That's when I decided Salk was no longer a hero.
I chose not to share my feelings about him with Jonathan, however, because I did not want to risk completely alienating him. So instead I brought up that famous interview Salk had with CBS “See It Now” news anchor Edward R. Murrow, who asked him who owned the patent on the vaccine, to which Salk replied, “Can you patent the sun?”
Jonathan admitted, “Well, he was paid a lot of money to make that vaccine.”
But Paul Offit did make millions from vaccine earnings, which he likened to winning the lottery.
Inside the train station, Jonathan and I finally parted ways.
“I hope we will get back in touch some day,” he told me.
“I hope so, too,” I said back, “Good luck with your research!”
I do hope he'll watch
If and when he does, he will not see a doctor who curses at his critics and lies that they don't have Asperger Syndrome, but paranoid schizophrenia. He will see a doctor who shows respect for his critics and fully answers their questions,
Jake Crosby has Asperger Syndrome and is a contributing editor to Age of Autism. Jake is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a BA in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy. He currently attends The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services where he is studying for an MPH in epidemiology.71高一英语上册期末复习(主要句型、词组)
上亿文档资料，等你来发现
71高一英语上册期末复习(主要句型、词组)
高一英语上册期末复习（主要句型、词组）；Unit1；1、beloyalto忠诚于，忠于；e.g.Weshouldbeloyaltoour；2、imagine+n/doing/sb.doi；e.g.1）Imagineahousewitha；2）Ican’timaginelivingany；之外，我想象不出还能住在什么地方；3）Iimaginethathewil
高一英语上册期末复习（主要句型、词组）Unit
11、 be loyal to
忠诚于，忠于e.g. We should be loyal to our country.
我们应该忠于我们的国家。2、 imagine +n /doing/sb. doing /也可接 that从句e.g. 1）Imagine a house with a big garden.
请想象有一座带大花园的房子。2）I can’t imagine living anywhere but Beijing.
除了北京之外，我想象不出还能住在什么地方。3）I imagine that he will be there.
我猜想他会在那儿。3、enjoy doing sth. 喜欢做某事e.g.
I enjoy watching TV.(注：常考的enjoy 只接动名词做宾语的动词还有imagine, escape,finish, miss, practice, advise, allow, consider, excuse, keep, mind, permit, risk,suggest等。 此外，feel like, be fond of, what(how)
about等词组亦要用动名词做宾语。4．be into 对……感兴趣、非常喜欢、深深迷上 e.g.I am really into jazz these days.最近我的确对爵士音乐太感兴趣了。5.
treat … as… 把……当作……处理，把……看作（视为）……e.g.
Don’t treat me as a
不要把我当作小孩看待。6. even though “尽管，即使”， 在句中引导让步状语从句，从句是事实，这时 eventhough=thoughe.g. He won’t talk about it even if he knows the
news.他即使知道这个消息，也不愿意告诉我。7.
should have done 这种结构表示“过去应该做某事而却没有做”含有责备或遗憾的意思e.g. She should have gone there alone.她本应该一个人去那里。（实际上不是一个人去的）Unit 21. more or less（1） 几乎，差不多，相当于 almost, nearlye.g.
I’v more or less finished reading the book.（2）大致，大约，或多或少
e.g. It took more or less a whole day to paint theceiling.2.
the same…as
表示“与……一样”强调两个相似或相同的物体或事情。e.g. Your answer is the same as his.
你的答案与他的一样。the same …that
“与……一样”强调同一个人或事物时，常用the same…that/we.g.
She is the same woman who came last week.她与上周来的那位妇女是同一个人。3.
come about
发生e.g. Can you tell me how the accident came about?你能告诉我事故是怎样发生的吗？4. for the first time
首次，第一次 在句中做状语e.g. He saw Naples for the first time. 他首次见到了那不勒斯。the first time 首次，第一次，引导状语从句或表语从句e.g. That was the first time I had left Guilin. 那是我第一次离开桂林。5.
need to do sth 需要干某事e.g. Bob needs to ask us for help with his work.need sb to do sth
需要某人干某事e.g. Bob needs the pop stars to play at the concert.need 还可做情态动词，常用于否定句和疑问句，needn’t do sth 不必干某事e.g. It’ you needn’t hurry.6、the number of “……的数量”后接复数名词做主语时，谓语用单数e.g. The number of the students has increased a lot since1995.自从1995年以来学生的人数增加了很多。a number of
“很多的，好些”表示程度，可以在 number 之前加large, great,small 之类的修饰词，该短语修饰主语时，谓语用复数。e.g. There are a small number of children公园里孩子们的人数不多。7.
except 表示同类事物中除去若干e.g. Except Liming, they are all workers.except for (1) 不同类别的事情或性质不同的事情e.g. The room is empty except for a broken chair.(2) 表示在总体上是好的，只是其中的某个细节或某个环节不尽人意e.g. His composition is good, except for some spelling mistakes.8.
with +名词/代词+动词的分词形式 构成的复合结构在句中通常做状语，可表示“伴随动作”，作为方式、原因、条件或结果等情况。如果名词或代词和分词之间的关系是主动关系，该分词用现在分词形式；如果是被动关系，则用过去分词形式。e.g. He stood there with his hands raised.
他举着手站在那里。The king came in, with all his servants following him.国王进来，后面跟着全体仆人。9.
some …others…
一些……一些……e.g. Some girls are playing poker, others are playing chess.有的女孩在打扑克，有的在下棋。Unit 31.
consider 用作及物动词，表示“考虑，思考”，后接名词、代词、动in the park.名词、疑问代词或疑问副词接不定式或宾语从句。e.g. Let me consider your plan.I am considering going abroad.We considered him as candidate.We are considering how to improve our English.They are considering whether they’ll take an advice.Consider用作不及物动词，表示“看作，认为”，用于“consider+名词/代词+宾语补足语”句型。e.g. I consider her to be my best friend.I consider it wrong to tell lies.We consider that the driver is not to blame.Mr. Smith is considered to have gone to Paris.2.
as well as
也， 又，e.g. He gave me money as well as advice.
除了给我忠告以外，他还给我钱。She speaks French as well as English.
他英语和法语说得一样好。3.
get away from
从……逃脱，离开，逃掉e.g. The thief got away from the policeman when they got off
当他们下车时， 小偷突然从警察手里逃脱了。3.
for fun 为了高兴，为了好玩e.g. He is learning French for fun.in fun
不是当真的，开玩笑的e.g. He only said in fun―he didn’t really mean it.make fun of
开……的玩笑，取笑e.g. It’s wrong to make fun of a blind man.4.
prefer to do A (+rather than +do B) 希望做A而不希望做Be.g. Jane prefers to stay at home rather than go shopping.5.
当心，注意，留神e.g. Watch out for cars when crossing the street.
such as 用来列举同类人或物中的几个例子e.g. English is spoken in many countries, such as Australiaand
go on a holiday 去度假e.g. What about going on a holiday in Dalian on National Day? Unit1.
get married
表示“结婚”的动作e.g. When did you get married?be married
表示“已结婚”这一状态e.g. Are you married or single? 3.
be afraid to do sth
表示“不敢/害怕做某事”e.g. She is afraid to go home to face her stepmother.be afraid of doing sth
表示“担心或生怕某事会发生”e.g. She doesn’t like to speak English because she is afraid ofmaking mistakes.be afraid of sb. /sth
表示害怕某人或 某物e.g.
Girls are often afraid of snakes.4.
hear sb. do
听见某人做（某事）表示动作的全过程e.g. I heard her sing in the other room.hear sb. doing sth听见某人在做某事 ， 表示动作正在进行e.g. Mary heard them quarrelling when she passed their house.hear sb/sh done听到某事被做过e.g. He looked up when he heard his name called.5.
struggle with
与……作斗争e.g. She struggled with the thief for a while.6.
be caught in
遇上，陷入（圈套）e.g. Jeff was caught in the rain yesterday and had a cold. 7.
must have done
表示对过去事情的推测，译为“一定，准时”它只能用在肯定句中e.g.
You look tired. You must have stayed up yesterday.8.
go through
穿过，通过e.g. A terrible noise went through the house.9.
指的是，涉及e.g.
What I have to say refers to all of you. Unit 51.
担负得起，买得起e.g. We can’t afford to go on vacation this year.They can afford this expensive car.2.
owe sth to sb/sth将某事归功于某人或某事e.g. He owes his success more to luck than to ability.3.
determine to do 决定（干某事）强调动作e.g. He determined to go abroad.be determined to do决定（干某事）说明一种状态，表示已下定决心
e.g. He was determined to do it for a long time.4.
make+宾语+过去分词 使（某事）……e.g.
He spoke slowly in order to make himself understood.5.
can’t help doing
情不自禁做某e.g. While watching Titanic, most people couldn’t help crying. Unit 61.
apologize to sb. for sth
因某事向某人道歉e.g. He apologized to his teacher for his coming to school
mean to 打算做某事e.g.
I mean to talk with him about it.mean doing意味着e.g.
I’ll not wait if it means delaying more than two days.mean sb.
to do打算让某人干某事e.g.
I don’t mean you to read this letter.3.
introduce sb. to sb. 把某人介绍给某人e.g.
The teacher has just introduced the new pupil to the
rest of the class.4.
follow sb.’s advice 听从某人的建议e.g.
Following the instruction on the bottle.5.
为……干杯，为……祝酒e.g.
Let’s drink to the success of your school.6.
make a good impression one.g.
He made a good impression on me.Unit
介意、反对多用于疑问句、否定句和条件句中，不用于肯定句，通常用于征求对方的许可，后接动名词短语或条件状语从句。e.g.
mind if I open the
window?=Would you mind myopening the window?2. lively(1)
主要用作定语，修饰人或物均可，常置于所修饰的名词之前，有时也可放其后，它还可用作表语。e.g.
She is regarded as one of the best living presidents at
present.(2)
是形容词，意思是“活着，存在的”为表语形容词，既可指人也可指物。e.g.alive/living. He died in the accident, but his driver was still包含各类专业文献、应用写作文书、中学教育、生活休闲娱乐、行业资料、各类资格考试、外语学习资料、幼儿教育、小学教育、71高一英语上册期末复习(主要句型、词组)等内容。　
　 高一英语期末短语句型总复习汇总_英语_高中教育_教育专区。高一英语期末短语句型...从某种程度上看,她的英语有所进步,但对她来说,学好英语道路还很长。 37. In... 　 高一英语第一学期期末复习资料(词汇 句子 语法填空)1 doc_英语_高中教育_教育...词性转换。根 据句子的需要,将括号里所给的词变形成句子所需的形式。 (每... 　 关键词:高二词组句型汇总同义词组归纳 同系列文档 高二英语词组句型汇总(建议..... 高一英语上册期末复习(主要... 10页 2财富值 高一英语提纲必修④(词组、..... 　 高一英语上册期末复习(主要... 5页 2财富值 高一英语上册1-4单元重点词..... 高一英语上册词组复习教案高一英语上册词组复习教案隐藏&& Unit One 必会习语 ... 　 高一英语必修2_期末复习_短语?句子测试[2]_高一英语_英语_高中教育_教育专区...二)请根据中文意思完成下列句子 1.我偶然在街上遇见一位老朋友。I met an ... 　 高一英语上学期Unit1-5必背句型汇总和 词组归纳总结_高一英语_英语_高中教育_教育专区。高一英语上学期Unit1-5必背句型汇总和 词组归纳总结... 　 高一英语上单元 重点短语&句型_英语_高中教育_教育专区。高一英语必修1-5单元重点短语及重点句型高一英语必修一 重点短语 Unit 1 wake up 醒来 wander off 漫步... 　 高一英语必修1单词词组必背... 10页 2财富值 高一下 期末复习---短语句.... 高一上必会词组, 高一上必会词组,句型 Unit 1 必会习语 1.What is sb. ... 　 人教新课标 必修一 英语重点句型及短语翻译 带答案 期末复习可用_高一英语_英语_高中教育_教育专区。人教新课标 必修一 重点句型及短语翻译 带答案期末复习可用...}