Sandy: Blogger on autism hit with subpoena **
Posted on 03 April 2008 by Sandy
** See Update below.
Earlier this week I wrote a post about the possibility that parents were being disregarded by the medical and scientific community with regard to the alleged role of vaccines in the onset of autism. Now, we have a related story that New Hampshire blogger Kathleen Seidel has been served with a subpoena regarding her scrutiny of a particular law suit against the vaccine maker Bayer.
For those who do not know of Seidel, she has a weblog called “neurodiversity.com,” a view of autism that is very different from the norm. My understanding is that neurodiversity advocates would prefer that people stop discussing autism in negative terms. Instead, as the term neuro-diversity suggests, people with autism should be seen simply as thinking, perceiving and processing differently than average people — who are referred to as neuro-typicals. While I can agree with that description for individuals who are high functioning, it has not been my personal or professional experience.
The point now, however, is not whether I disagree or agree with Seidel, it is that she has been served with papers by lawyer Clifford Showmaker of Vienna, Virginia who is acting on behalf of clients against the vaccine maker.
This news is being reported by both Instapundit and Overlawyered and I present it as a heads-up to the blogging community. If the legal action was meant to put a chill on free speech and open debate, we have to all gather around and support Seidel.
Note: H/T to Jack. C/P at Crux-of-the-Matter.
Update: To follow the ongoing comment discussion at Seidel’s blog, click here. Regular readers will know that up to now I have more than given the parents who are undertaking legal action against vaccine manufacturers the benefit of the doubt even though I am 100% behind the need for vaccinations. Why? Because I am old enough to remember how devastating childhood diseases can be. Given this incident, however, I would have to say there appears to be more to this whole anti-vaccine matter than meets the eye. In fact, all the subpoena has done is question the motivation behind the intimidation directed at Seidel personally. I mean, requesting personal bank records is way over the top. While I don’t necessarily agree with Seidel’s point of view on all matters, she does bring up some excellent points and I recommend readers take the time to read some of her writings.
Popularity: 38% [?]
April 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Dear Sandy
It’s great that you are supporting Kathleen and free speech, especially the meticulously researched free speech generated by Kathleen. If you don’t mind may I take this opportunity to question this?
“My understanding is that neurodiversity advocates would prefer that people stop discussing autism in negative terms. Instead, as the term neuro-diversity suggests, people with autism should be seen simply as thinking, perceiving and processing differently than average people — who are referred to as neuro-typicals”
This is the received wisdom, generated by folks who want help basically and don’t mind too much how they advocate for it, including bashing anyone who might intimate that the 1 in 150 autism ‘epidemic’ isn’t the IQ less than 30, non aware empty husks and the rest of the emo rhetoric. Neurodiversity is rather difficult to define except as a very broad term indicating that the differences among humans should be acknowledged as just that - difference, which might be a good thing and might be a bad thing - all depends. Trying to pin this concept down any further and epistemological turmoil awaits. I’ve tried to get a definition out of the pity party crew, but so far, no luck. Not surprising really. What they don’t see is that difference can be good and that what is defined as normal can be pathological - all depends. What does not exist are neurotypicals because neurodiversity and neurotypicality seem to be contradictory concepts and I think it would be difficult to carry both simultaneously. Personally, I’m more in favour of a difference approach as eminently more practical. I would think one would be more inclined to go looking for strategies that work with that individual if the ways in which that individual is different are in the foreground rather than relegated to some background of mystical notions of normal.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Alyric — Thanks for your explanation. But, you know what, I have no idea who thinks what and in the final analysis don’t really care. I don’t want the autism debate to fall into a type of political correct terminology.
All I care about is getting help for the children, youth and adults who need it. If someone doesn’t want to be labelled or doesn’t need community supports, then all well and good. However, if a child needs ABA, then thats okay too. My son is Aspergers and, for the most part, gets the community help he needs.
And, the reality is if you want and need help in our society, you MUST be labelled as autistic or Aspergers or whatever the special need. There is no shame in that. No one is a victim. While I don’t like labels that are negative, it is the only way to justify treatment and or literacy program enhancement money to be allocated or spent.
But, I have to tell you, I was a cognition educational specialist when I was in private practice. The notion of neurodiversity is not unusual to me. There were no typicals in my practice. Who is typical anyway? We all have different learning styles and auditory processing preferences. In fact, I don’t used the term pathological, just difference.
The language of autism has become so difficult when terms are used in different ways by different people. Maybe that is what I will try to do at a later date. Clarify the terms. That is, of course, if that is possible to do without offending someone or some group.
In the meantime, I am supporting Kathleen Seidel as a fellow blogger because she seems to try very hard to validate everything she says — much as I do — and I would hope she and her regular readers would support me in similar circumstances.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Reading through her “motion to quash” arguments re the several violations of entrenched amendment rights, it looks likely that the subpoena will have to be withdrawn. There’s clear violation existing there and now something to keep track of. All should be aware the law is as malleable a creature as you can get. Something to watch in next few weeks.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I was one of the bloggers named in Shoemaker’s subpoena, which is my dog in the hunt.
You may find Seidel’s two latest posts of interest.
Billing the Adversary
http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/165
Numerous decisions issued over the twenty year history of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) document the extent to which the limits on attorney compensation have been tested by practitioners seeking remuneration from its taxpayer-financed coffers. The following review summarizes decisions involving the recently-sanctioned VICP specialist Clifford Shoemaker, Esq. — a central instigator of the campaign to convince the public of the speculative, scientifically unsupported hypothesis that a significant number of cases of autism result from vaccine injury, co-founder of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, and a founding member its Institutional Review Board, which sponsors and provides ethical oversight of medical research and experimentation on autistic children and adolescents conducted by his long-time colleague Dr. Mark Geier.
Inspecting the Outstretched Palm
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/166/
The potential for procedural and billing improprieties by Vaccine Injury Compensation Program petitioners’ attorneys — especially those representing numerous clients with similar, speculative claims — is made painfully evident in Special Master Denise Vowell’s recent fee and cost decision in Carrington v. HHS, Case 99-495V (Fed.Cl.Spec.Mstr., June 18, 2008) (unpublished), posted to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims website three days ago.