Minnesota Establishes Autism Council

Minnesota Establishes Autism Council

In October 2018, the Minnesota State Senate established a working group called the Minnesota Autism Council to provide guidance on how best to address issues relating to autism, including “treatment, educational options, employment opportunities, independent living, and more.” It was decided that the council would consist of individuals from different backgrounds, including autism advocates and caregivers, people living with autism, elected public officials, representatives of state agencies and other citizens.1 2

According to State Senator Jim Abeler of Anoka, Minnesota, “In selecting members of the Autism Council, we desired to get a broad range of participants. Including all voices and points of view will improve our chances of developing policy recommendations and action steps that will stand the test of time and actually work.”3

One in 42 children in Minnesota are currently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).2

Sen. Abeler, who thinks that healthcare professionals should inform parents about the “pluses and minuses of vaccine,” appointed the first three council members last fall. Among these was Wayne Rohde, who was assigned the task of helping shape the group and choosing other members, which ultimately included Patti Carroll. Both Rohde and Carroll have been involved in efforts to create public awareness about vaccine-related reactions and the importance of preserving the right to make informed and voluntary vaccine choices with regard to vaccination.2 3 4

Rohde, who has a son who is on the autism spectrum and defends the right of parents to make decisions about vaccinating their children, has stressed that his position on vaccination is not relevant. “We’re not about causation within the council. The council is all about how to deal and help those who are afflicted, and their families and those who provide services,” said Rohde.2 3 4

Nonetheless, the presence of Rohde and Carroll on the council has generated opposition from others within the council concerned about their vaccine safety and choice advocacy work. According to fellow council member Noah McCourt, “Even if it’s not something that’s discussed or that a policy is going to come out of, giving them this large contingency on this council is dangerous.”2 3

The Minnesota Autism Council consists of more than 30 members.2 4


References:

1 Learfield Wire Services. State Senate Appoints New Minnesota Autism Council Working Group. VoiceofAlexandria.com Oct. 18, 2018.
2 Mole B. Anti-vaccine advocates appointed to Minnesota autism council after measles outbreak. Ars Technica Jan. 25, 2019.
3 Enking M. Minnesota’s Autism Board Installs Anti-Vaxxers. Daily Beast Jan. 24, 2019.
4
Gstalter M. Vaccine skeptics appointed to new Minnesota council on autism. The Hill Jan. 25, 2019.

5 Responses to "Minnesota Establishes Autism Council"

  1. Joy Metcalf   February 28, 2019 at 10:30 pm

    The usual response: let’s shut up anyone with differing opinions. We don’t want to hear them, we don’t want them telling us the science, and we definitely don’t want them influencing any kind of workgroup or public policy.

    It’s pretty sad that people have been fed so much fear that they can’t see this is not a vaccine or health issue, but a freedom of choice issue. If they would think for one moment, they’d realize the human race would have died out long ago if vaccines were that important.

    Reply
  2. Nancy Hokkanen   March 1, 2019 at 1:11 am

    Twin Cities newspapers and blogs are leveraging McCourt’s comments for their own misguided purposes, rather than:
    (1) communicating directly with Rohde and Carroll about the Task Force’s activities,
    (2) fully investigating McCourt’s philosophies and priorities for his disabled constituents, or
    (3) reporting investigatory articles reflecting the massive impact of our state’s incredibly high autism rate.

    Though traditional media could re-cement its position with quality investigative journalism, instead they are adopting the high-speed approach of print first, think later. Repeaters, not reporters.

    Reply
  3. Doris Steele   March 2, 2019 at 11:08 am

    Why do people who have their children vaccinated…………who supposedly won’t get the diseases…………want to force parents and children who don’t want the vaccines to get them? This makes no sense to me???

    Reply
  4. Josh   March 4, 2019 at 1:11 am

    *PROOF* *VACCINES were NEVER NEEDED to eradicate Infectious Diseases* (don’t believe me, read it for yourself)
    *Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century* * (2000)
    https://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/45-2000-Pediatrics-Vital-Statistics.pdf
    … *”Once again, nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.”* …

    … *”The major decline in child mortality that occurred in the first third of the 20th century have been attributable to a combination of improved socioeconomic conditions* in this country and the public health strategies to protect the health of Americans. These public health measures included the establishment of local health departments in nearly all of the states. State and local health departments implemented these public health measures including *water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygiene practices. These improvements in water and food safety and purity are linked to the major decline in diarrheal disease seen in the early years of the century. Similarly, improvements in housing and decreased crowding* in US Cities are linked to the diseases attributable to person-to-person airborne transmission.”..
    Vaccination, while first used in the 18th century, became more widely implemented in the middle part of the century. Vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis became widely available during the late 1920’s, but only widely used in routine pediatric practice after World War 2. *Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century.*”…

    AND

    *Infectious Diseases and Social Change* (Infectious Diseases Society of America, 1971) Dr. Edward H Kass
    http://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/Kass%201971.pdf
    …”First we had accepted some half-truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half-truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past–tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc.–and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors in extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. *That these are half-truths is known, but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.* ”…
    ….” It is important that this point be understood in its completeness. The point was made years ago by Wade Hamptom Frost, and more recently by Rene Dubos, and has been repeatedly stressed through the years by many observers of the public health. Our research efforts in dealing with tuberculosis have been of great value in the management of individual patients and in present-day public health practice, but they do not account for the linear decline in deaths during the past 100 years.
    Similar trends in mortality have been reported with respect to diphtheria (figure 2), scarlet fever (figure 3), rheumatic fever, pertussis (figure 4), measles (figure 5), and many others. There are less reliably documented but suggestive similar trends with respect to carcinoma of the cervix, toxemia of pregnancy, stroke, and certain other disorders. *This decline in rates of certain dis- orders, correlated roughly with improving socioeconomic circumstances, is merely the most important happening in the history of the health of man, yet we have only the vaguest and most general notions about how it happened and by what mechanisms socioeconomic improvement and decreased rates of certain diseases run in parallel* .”.…

    Reply
  5. Ava   March 8, 2019 at 3:38 pm

    Good for Minnesota. It’s way past time to get ahead of this.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.