A Stubborn Case of Selective Altruism · May 15, 08:30 AM

On Thursday, May 10, I received a reply to my April 12 letter, A Plaintiff in the Pulpit, from Julie Taylor, Director of Children, Youth and Family Advocacy of the United Methodist Church Women’s Division.

Statement of the United Methodist Church-Women’s Division

Dear Ms. Seidel,

Thank you for being in touch and sharing your concern with us about this issue. Since the Women’s Division is sponsoring the June event to which you refer and I am the staff person primarily responsible for that event, I am responding to your letter, A Plaintiff in the Pulpit.

Our press release on the upcoming The Truth is Coming to Light event states that we feel strongly that vaccinations are important to our health and safety. Too many children and adults die from diseases that are preventable with immunizations. We don’t want people to stop caring for their health. The Women’s Division and members of United Methodist Women have historically supported global health initiatives to promote healthy families and continue that work today.

The Women’s Division is working to ban the presence of any mercury compound in pharmaceutical products or vaccines, prescribed or over-the-counter because we recognize the known risks of toxicity and Federal Safety Guidelines for Exposure to Mercury. When pharmaceutical products and vaccines can be produced without mercury, we question why even trace amounts of this known neurotoxin are used.

The Women’s Division is making a collective call to maintain the health and well-being of all children in accordance with The United Methodist Book of Discipline, which says:

“We encourage wise policies relating to the availability of potentially beneficial or potentially damaging prescription and over-the-counter drugs; we urge that complete information about their use and misuse be readily available to both doctor and patient.”

Therefore, we advocate providing the opportunity of informed consent to individuals about mercury exposure through their pharmaceutical products and vaccines. We advocate that mercury-free stocks of vaccines and other pharmaceutical products be prioritized for pregnant women, newborn infants and children.

Rev. Sykes shared that she was involved in litigation in her presentation to the Justice Priorities Committee at the April 2006 board of directors meeting. This committee adopted the original recommendation on this issue and referred it to the full board of directors for their approval. We understand that her personal judicial advocacy extends from a desire to seek justice for children suffering from mercury poisoning, but we are not helping Rev. Sykes seek compensation through legal action.

The overall work of the Women’s Division is based on the call from Jesus Christ to “let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.” We go out of our way as mothers, sisters and grandmothers to have clean water, air and food for our children. What is wrong with asking for clean healthy drugs for our children?

Our upcoming event is an example of the role the Women’s Division and United Methodist Women play in bringing issues related to women, children and youth to the forefront. The event is intended to educate the faith community about the dangers of using mercury as a preservative in vaccinations and other drugs. The Women’s Division is the policy-making arm of United Methodist Women, an organization of close to 1 million members across the United States, whose purpose is to foster spiritual growth, develop leaders and advocate for justice.

Julie Taylor
Children, Youth and Family Advocacy
Women’s Division
United Methodist Church
100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Suite 53
Washington, DC 20002
202-488-5660, ext. 202
202-488-5681 (fax)
www.umwmission.org

In a brief cover letter, Ms. Taylor stated, “I hope this answers some, though not all of your questions.”

My response to Ms. Taylor

14 May 2007

Dear Ms. Taylor,

Thank you for your reply. My letter was addressed and sent to the Council of Bishops, the General Board of Global Ministries, the General Board of Church and Society, and the Women’s Division of the United Methodist Church, and the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy. I emailed it to every Methodist bishop in the United States, and to the official contact people for each of the other organizations to which it was addressed, as provided on their websites. Please see below for a list of recipients’ email addresses. I have also included these in the “cc” line of this email, rather than in the “bc” line as I did previously. I herewith attach a copy of the original letter in case any recipient of this one has not yet had an opportunity to read it.

Practically a month has passed since I originally wrote you, raising numerous extensively-documented, time-sensitive questions of justice and ethics regarding an event scheduled for the first weekend of June. I had hoped that these matters would be of immediate concern to the leaders of the organizations that are sponsoring it. However, the only other acknowledgements I have received are an automated reply indicating that my email to Rev. R. Randy Day was forwarded to him, and a brief acknowledgement from Rev. C. Douglas Smith at the Virginia Interfaith Center, who stated that he intended to respond in full at a later date. This has not yet occurred.

In your response, you acknowledged that you and your colleagues were aware of Rev. Lisa Sykes’ $20,000,000 lawsuit when you committed Church resources to supporting her “judicial advocacy,” reasoning that her purportedly altruistic motives mitigated any possible conflicts of interest. The remainder of your letter recapitulates the Women’s Division’s pronouncements about vaccines, and press releases about the upcoming Simpsonwood seminar – materials I cited in my original letter to you. Nowhere in these materials have you disclosed the fact that the United Methodist Church employee responsible for initiating the UMC “vaccine safety” campaign has a substantial financial interest in the outcome of pending litigation directly related to the subject of that campaign. By dismissing the significance of Rev. Sykes’ own conflicts of interest, you and your colleagues have created one of your own.

Your sympathy and affection for Rev. Sykes is unmistakable, as is your adoption of her and her colleagues’ definition of “informed consent,” “toxicity,” “education,” and “danger,” and their typographic habit of highlighting scare-words such as “neurotoxic” with contrasting colors. It would seem that she is justified in her apparent confidence, expressed in a comment she recently posted to the Evidence of Harm list, that you and your colleagues unquestioningly support her legal and political crusade.

“The church has shown itself to be one of the most receptive groups to [the mercury] issue, even when it comes under attack for doing so.” (May 7, 2007)

The extensive ethical problems created by the United Methodist Church’s ill-advised advocacy on behalf of vaccine-injury plaintiffs should be considered and adjudicated by individuals who are not Rev. Sykes’ personal friends.

You correctly noted that your reply does not address most of the substantive questions I have put to you and your colleagues. To reiterate and expand upon some of these:

§ Do you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division routinely undertake advocacy on behalf of parties in civil litigation? If so, how do you determine the validity of claims made by either party?

§ Do you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division routinely issue official statements regarding scientific matters? If so, how do you adjudicate scientific disputes?

§ Rev. Sykes claims that an unnamed “Women’s Division executive” flatly refused a caller’s request to include a variety of perspectives on autism causation and vaccine safety at the upcoming Simpsonwood “educational event.” Ms. Taylor, are you the person to whom she was referring?

§ Would it be just or charitable for you or any other leader of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division to knowingly prohibit and exclude relevant scientific or other evidence when conducting a church-sponsored inquiry into any controversy?

§ Did Rev. Sykes disclose to you and your colleagues the fact that the “team of researchers” who spoke at your press conference are all consultants to plaintiffs in vaccine-injury litigation, and that their claims and methods are accorded little credence within the medical and scientific community?

§ Did you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division consider any arguments or evidence other regarding autism, vaccines, thimerosal, and the moral culpability of those Rev. Sykes has accused of wrongdoing other than what Rev. Sykes has presented to you, prior to committing church resources and leveraging the authority of your ecclesiastical positions to lend credibility to and create media opportunities for her and her litigation team?

§ Have you or your colleagues independently solicited information about autism from individuals knowledgeable about autism; information about vaccines from professionals involved in vaccine development, vaccine safety and regulation; or information about health and disease from pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, or professional staff of the Methodist hospitals, colleges and health ministries whose policies you seek to influence?

§ The Microsoft Word document properties for the “Mercury in Vaccines is Poison” press release posted on the Virginia Interfaith Center website indicate that it was originally created not by United Methodist Church or Virginia Interfaith Center staff, but in the offices of Rev. Sykes’ associate Dr. Mark Geier. Prior to issuing this press release, did you seek to independently verify the accuracy of the claim that “all children receiving vaccines” are currently exposed to levels of mercury exceeding federal safety levels?

§ Did you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division approve the press release posted by Rev. Sykes to the Evidence of Harm list, which characterizes the participants in the June 2000 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices as malevolent and uncaring, asserts that researchers manipulated statistical data in a deliberate effort to minimize evidence of a link between vaccines and autism, and accuses unnamed “government officials and industry executives” of enabling the poisoning of babies? If so, by what means did you ascertain the motives of the June 2000 Simpsonwood meeting attendees?

§ Is it just or charitable for you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division to disseminate vague, nonspecific, unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing against any individual or group of people – in this instance, people involved in the development, licensing, distribution and administration of vaccines and implementation of public health policy? Have you read and considered Judge Lawrence Stengel’s order dismissing Sykes v. Glaxo, and FDA Assistant Commissioner Jeffrey Shuren’s response to the Coalition for Mercury Free Drugs (CoMeD) petition, both of which noted that Rev. Sykes and her associates had failed to plead with specificity or offer proof of their accusations?

§ Do you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division intend to identify the specific targets of any accusations of wrongdoing you disseminate, and offer every one of these individuals an opportunity to respond?

§ Have you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division considered the validity and morality of certain medical practices and the ethical conduct of certain medical research promoted by Rev. Sykes? I welcome you to re-read my original letter, and the essays and letters I have published over the past year about the many problems surrounding the pharmaceutical experimentation on autistic children being conducted by Rev. Sykes’ colleagues Dr. Mark and David Geier, their patent-pending “Lupron Protocol,” and the “Institute for Chronic Illnesses,” upon whose Institutional Review Board she serves.

§ Have you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division considered the information that I provided regarding Mark and David Geier’s “Two-Phased Study” – a scientific paper replete with characteristics of plagiarism, produced as scientific evidence at a United Methodist Church-sponsored event, and made freely available on the Virginia Interfaith Center website?

§ Have you or any other leaders of the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division or the Virginia Interfaith Center considered the potential consequences of propagating the falsehood that FDA-approved vaccines containing miniscule amounts of thimerosal are “poisonous”? Similarly unfounded rumors about the polio vaccine have resulted in a worldwide resurgence of polio and a consequent increase in polio-related deaths and disability. Can you explain the moral reasoning behind your decision as (presumably) non-scientists to pursue the goal of reducing the incidence of autism by promoting unproven hypotheses legitimately disputed in the scientific community, and by promoting unfounded accusations of wrongdoing the widespread acceptance of which poses the very real risk of increasing the worldwide incidence of death and disability by vaccine-preventable diseases?

§ Does your email represent the official and final response of the United Methodist Church to my concerns? The questions I have raised are not idle ones. Do you or your colleagues intend to address them, or do you intend to proceed with your sponsorship of your “educational event” as if I had never asked them?

You have asked, “What is wrong with asking for clean healthy drugs for our children?” Dr. Jeffrey Shuren of the FDA ably defined “clean healthy drugs” in his response to the 2004 CoMeD petition, through which Rev. Sykes and her fellow petitioners sought to achieve immediate revocation of the marketing licenses of FDA-approved vaccines and other medicinal products containing any amount of thimerosal – an action that would be scientifically unwarranted and would render those products unavailable to those in need of them. You have characterized Rev. Sykes’ quest with gentle, righteous euphemisms such as “searching for truth,” “questioning,” “asking,” and “judicial advocacy.” Her quest can also be characterized as the pious public facade of a coordinated campaign by a coalition of plaintiffs, lawyers and entrepreneurs who promote the idea that the majority of cases of autism are caused by vaccine-injury as part of an aggressive attempt to extract money damages from innocent parties for imagined wrongdoing. This effort is supported by scientific “evidence” much of which was manufactured after the initiation of litigation by individuals with a demonstrable financial interest in the promotion of unproven autism treatments and the perpetuation of conflict over vaccines, and some of which is of highly questionable provenance.

You have denied any intention of helping Rev. Sykes seek compensation through legal action; by your actions, you and your colleagues are doing exactly that.

I will leave you with a question of great personal interest to me. Several days ago, Rev. Sykes lamented to her fellow advocates:

“Sadly, there are a few ‘defenders of mercury’ who are most alarmed that the faith community would oppose injecting poison into people, babies and pregnant women in particular.” (May 8, 2007)

Are those who dispute Rev. Sykes’ interpretation of scientific evidence, who express concern about her dissemination of inaccurate and biased information about autism and vaccines, who are disturbed by her promotion of unproven, potentially dangerous autism treatments to parents such as myself, and who protest the tactics she and her colleagues have employed in pursuit of their legal and economic agenda, to be demonized as “attackers of the church” and “defenders of mercury” at the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division’s “educational event”?

I look forward to your reply.

Cordially,

Kathleen Seidel
neurodiversity.com | honoring the variety of human wiring

Bishops of the United Methodist Church

cob@umc.org
pgriffin@umcnic.org
bishopdakumc@ideaone.net
bishopsabc@aol.com
bishopcoyner@inareaumc.org
dkbrockmeyer@iaumc.org
Bishopsoffice@miareaumc.org
sally.dyck@mumac.org
bishop@eocumc.com
sfritz@wocumc.org
Bishoplee@wisconsinumc.org
albepisarea@verizon.net
bishopsoffice@neumc.org
bishop@cpcumc.org
Bishop@gnjumc.org
Bishop@NYAC.com
nywaumc@frontiernet.net
marcus.matthews@epaumc.org
umbishop@wpaumc.org
javera@coqui.net
bishopschol@bwcumc.org
WVAreaUMC@aol.com
bishopcnc@arumc.org
ntcbishop@sbcglobal.net
bishop@ctcumc.org
Bishop.Huie@txcumc.org
kansasbishop@kswestumc.org
lcumc@bellsouth.net
JPowell@moumethodist.org
bishopsherer@umcneb.org
mbelu@nmconfum.com
cnoble@okumc.org
bishop@umcswtx.org
bishop.awf@knology.net
wwillimon@northalabamaumc.org
bishop@wnccumc.org
bishop@umcsc.org
bishop@flumc.org
bishop@holston.org
bishop@kyumc.org
bishop@mississippi-umc.org
bishop@nasharea.org
bishop@ngumc.org
smsmith@nccumc.org
EstellePruden@vaumc.org
bishopsec@sgaumc.com
bishop@rmcumc.com
calpacbishop@earthlink.net
bishop@eocumc.com
bishopmc@desertsw.org
bishop@umoi.org
bishop@calnevumc.org
bishop@pnwumc.org

UMC General Board of Global Ministries
RDayInfo@gbgm-umc.org
info@gbgm-umc.org

UMC General Board of Church and Society
gbcs@umc-gbcs.org
cabrams@umc-gbcs.org
lbales@umc-gbcs.org

UMC Association of Health and Welfare Ministries
uma@umassociation.org

UMC Women’s Division
ldauway@gbgm-umc.org
sjohnson@gbgm-umc.org
jtaylor@gbgm-umc.org

UMC Health Ministries
pmagyar@gbgm-umc.org
cthomas@gbgm-umc.org
jreich@gbgm-umc.org

UMCOR
sdixon@gbgm-umc.org
cthomas@gbgm-umc.org

UMC Fellowship of Health Care Volunteers
boeroger@cableone.net

Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy
lakesideumc@mindspring.com
doug@virginiainterfaithcenter.org

Comments


  1. I have a response for her.

    “You are preaching another Gospel. You are using God’s money to do it.

    Shame on you!”

    — Big White Hat    May 15, 09:17 AM    #

  2. Good luck getting any answers to those questions. An answer would mean that someone would have to process the question and formulate a response – that’s too much effort for these administrators.

    You caught them with their pants down and I’d imagine that it’s easier to brush you off than to face the unflattering possibility that they’ve ethically compromised themselves.

    The bottom line is that Sykes has a chronic penchant for medical experimentation on children. And now an organization that claims to be dedicated to good, is tainted by its association with this one individual and the anti-government, anti-science rhetoric she and her ilk espouse.

    — Bartholomew Cubbins    May 15, 10:15 AM    #

  3. “What is wrong with asking for clean healthy drugs for our children?”

    You mean like healthy and wholesome Lupron for all the kiddies?

    — notmercury    May 15, 01:34 PM    #

  4. How wholesome is it for Lisa Sykes to go around telling people about her son’s supposed testosterone effects and the need to wipe out his testosterone with serious drugs that can do him great harm.

    Like Lisa, deary, What would Jesus do? Join up with the Geiers who are liars? Help them misrepresent and lie?

    There’s plenty of Lisa Sykes weirdness described in “Evidence of Harm” by David Kirby. She claims to have ties to the CIA or military or something and has used them to try to uncover the supposed evil dealings of people she’s against.

    In my opinion, the woman is plain bizarre.

    — Ms. Clark    May 15, 02:11 PM    #

  5. I was fairly boiling when I showed this letter to dh. Like Big White Hat – it’s ‘shame on you’ for the absolute hypocrisy of pushing for justice for children through what Lupron? Are they mad?

    Dh thinks this should go much wider – like every media outlet anybody has access to. I don’t know how Kathleen remains so polite in the face of such provocation.

    Me, I’m going back with my unanswered letter and I’m going to paint a word picture of child abuse in short easy to understand sentences. They seem to work on emotion rather than reason.

    — Alyric    May 15, 06:29 PM    #

  6. There is something wrong there. I live in her area, and have heard nothing but “crazy” stories about her, from parents with kids on the spectrum.

    — Bink    May 15, 06:49 PM    #

  7. Oh, there’s the definite aroma of “crazy” about the Sykes woman. I think it’s time for a good old-fashioned defrocking! The Methodists had better do something drastic or they’ll have not just a PR problem but the blood of children on their hands.

    — isles    May 15, 10:02 PM    #

  8. I’m a Methodist. Maybe I should go to this thing and note that not all Methodist Women agree with this stance on this issue…

    — Joeymom    May 15, 10:58 PM    #

  9. 10 percent of $20 million is a pretty nice sum to go to the church. But nah, that wouldn’t be any incentive for the church to get involved.

    — anonimouse    May 15, 11:56 PM    #

  10. I applaud you, Kathleen (actually, I have not stopped applauding since the original letter was sent). While I, and many others, have sat back and wondered what the outcome of this upcoming meeting would be, you have taken direct, appropriate, thoughtful, and (hopefully) effective action against it. Thank you very much.

    — Steve D    May 16, 12:10 AM    #

  11. Lisa on Google video.

    ick.

    — Ms. Clark    May 16, 03:17 AM    #

  12. Come on. That wasn’t Dana Carvey??? Really?

    — notmercury    May 16, 08:06 AM    #

  13. So… an ethics problem isn’t an ethics problem, because they feel she has good intentions?

    — Interverbal    May 16, 09:24 PM    #

  14. Lisa Sykes and the “Church Lady” – separated at birth??? Wow!

    — hymominous    May 18, 05:05 AM    #

  15. Sykopathic?

    — Ruth    May 18, 08:47 AM    #

  16. I am not much of a church-goer, but I DO remember a few things from attending services in the past. Among these recollections of church-supported morality are:

    [1] The ends do not justify the means. In other words, it is not acceptable to defame, distort and deceive, even if your goals (or INTENDED goals) are good.

    [2] Do not bear false witness. I believe accusing people of willfully and knowingly “injecting poison into babies” would rise to the level of “false witness”, especially in the absence of any evidence.

    I’m sure there are many others, but my memory fails me.

    At any rate, it would appear that the Right Reverend Sykes and Director Taylor have committed the United Methodist Church to fight on one side of a purely secular dispute. Unfortunately for the Methodist Church, they have been committed to fight for the side that routinely uses deception, defamation, intimidation and harrassment.

    I know that the Methodist Church has a long history of activism in a variety of social issues, but this time they are on the wrong side.

    I wonder when they’ll discover this – and what they’ll do then.

    Prometheus

    — Prometheus    May 19, 11:11 AM    #

  17. Ah, NOW I know why I shouldn’t become a Methodist when the Anglican church splits!

    Two really unrelated (well, marginally unrelated) bits of information: first, ‘Reverend’ is a title that should always be preceded by ‘the’, as in ‘the Reverend Sykes’; second, a ‘Right Reverend’ is a Bishop.

    Sorry, just random churchy facts from a church secretary who has lots of clergy (including Bishops) in the family.

    — Jannalou    May 20, 08:24 PM    #

  18. Respect, yes, revere, no. I have no reverence for Lisa Sykes. I won’t call her or anyone else “reverend.” It’s wrong to “revere” humans. In my opinion.

    — the fellow human    May 20, 11:18 PM    #

  19. Jannalou,

    Thank you for the correction. I have had limited experience in religious hierarchy, so my knowledge of the terminology is limited.

    As for whether or not the Reverend Sykes is due any reverence, I leave that to those who know her better. Her title is what it is, and I like to address people in a proper manner. If her title was “the Flaming Idiot”, I would be sure to call her that.

    I see her as just another in a tragically long line of people who have (mis)used their titles and positions to advance a hypothesis that is dead and should be given a decent burial.

    Having failed to provide data to support their pet hypothesis, they went to the courts. Now that they’re failing in the courts, they seem to be positioning themselves to get legislative relief.

    No matter. In the end, the data will show what is real and what is not. Even if the mercury-causes-autism crowd gets their hypothesis made the law of the land, it won’t change reality.

    Prometheus

    — Prometheus    May 21, 10:22 PM    #

  20. Truth be told, I am very sorry to see clergy get caught up in things like this. I know that they’re really just people (trust me, I know!), but somehow it just seems so wrong that someone who should be closer to the truth (by virtue of their vocation, as people called to be God’s voice among the people) can be led so far astray.

    Luckily, my family is all sane and they do actually listen to me and ask me questions when information gets put out in the media and so on.

    — Jannalou    May 23, 03:39 AM    #

  21. Every time I read your blog I get an almost irresistible urge to post “We are not worthy.”?

    Finally it got irresistible.

    We are not worthy!

    Humbly yours … etc.

    — mike stanton    May 23, 08:07 PM    #

  22. I am a United Methodist woman with autistic children. I think they are barking up the wrong tree. There is (was?) also mercury in dental fillings. Who got up in arms about that? Or the lead in hair color? The fact is that autism has typically presented itself around 15 months, even before the days of childhood inoculations. That just coincidentally happens to be when most kids get their MMR. There has been so much fear-mongering over vaccines the past 15-20 years, that kids now in college are catching childhood diseases THEY were inoculated against, because so many of their friends were not inoculated. Think measles and whooping cough. Both are on the rise among college-aged individuals, who are now having to be re-immunized against them.

    — Cool    Jul 8, 04:24 AM    #

  23. This is why religion is a drug that must be cured.

    — Peter    Oct 1, 06:17 PM    #