Sam, that's a good point. The difference is you don't have to prove you eat Fruit Loops and Oscar Meyer Lunchables to go to school.

KIM

While Obama talks a good game and gives us empty promises (as usual) John McCain cosponsored the Combating Autism Act of 2006, and worked to ensure its enactment. This law is helping to increase public awareness and screening of autism spectrum disorder, promote the use of evidence-based interventions, and create autism Centers of Excellence for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research and Epidemiology. John McCain understands that despite the federal and scientific research efforts to date, the exact causes of autism are not yet known and greater research is needed to understand this disorder. That is why in November 2007, he joined with Senator Lieberman in requesting the leadership of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal research into autism, to hold a hearing on federal research efforts regarding factors affecting incidence and treatment in order to help determine where research efforts can best be directed. As President, John McCain will work to advance federal research into autism, promote early screening, and identify better treatment options, while providing support for children with autism so that they may reach their full potential.

I believe both Senators should be asked the question in terms of parental and personal choice, rather than 'selective vaccination'. Senator McCain consistently stands against personal choice in the area of a woman's right to chose to terminate a pregnancey, even when her health is in jepoardy. Whatever you may believe about abortion, his stand is a clear determination that he has the right to invade a woman's privacy, so I don't see him standing for a parent's right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children -another privacy issue. Senator Obama seems much more likely to me to support a parent's right to chose to not vaccinate, even if he disagrees with their decision. He does have 2 young daughters and has probably chosen to vaccinate them, as many of us have done, before we had negative experiences. This is an issue that needs to be clarified much more but Senator Obama has always supported parents' rights, so I don't see him changing his position.

I really don't get it. I just read through all these comments and you don't even KNOW McCain's stance on the issue. I don't understand how you can have this argument. I don't understand why I wasted all this time reading your comments.

There is no evidence that autism is linked to vaccinations. the truth is that diagnoses have increased merely as an artifact of changing diagnostic criteria. the truth is that every credible piece of research has shown that there is no link. In areas where vaccinations have decreased autism rates have not decreased and there is many examples. Also they are now starting to be able to show signs of autism in children before the age of 1 year which is when the applicable vaccine is administered. the latest research is showing that there is most likely a genetic link. I hate to say it but I am in support of forced vaccinations. If the parents aren't responsible enough to put seat belts on the children they should be punished as they should if they refuse to protect their children from potentialy fatal illnesses.

Why is it that so many people here have blindly jumped onto the pro-Opharma bandwagon? Is it simply because they can't bring themselves to admit an extreme left-liberal like Barack would be anti-vaccine choice? Get over it and open your eyes. What you are doing is no different than what Big Pharma has done for years. Big Pharma would rather not investigate legitimate questions from us because they don't fit with their big profits agenda. Obamaborgs would rather blidly follow Barack into the abyss than admit he is a Big Pharma chill. Read on: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/companies/pharma_votes/index.htm?postversion=2008030714

"Btw, many of you failed to mention Obama's response to vaccinations in which he states: "I believe that every American has the right to access these screenings, and I believe that every American has the right also to refuse these screenings voluntarily if they so choose. I also support a thorough and independent review of our nation’s vaccination policies.""

A health SCREENING is not the same as a vaccination. A screening is like having your hearing checked or getting tested for diabetes. It is NOT getting injected with things. You didn't notice how Obama refused to take on the issue and instead tried to change the subject by talking about screenings in the hopes that people like you (whom it obviously worked very well on) wouldn't notice?

Dadvocate: Oh yes, the lastest Palin's smear is that she cut her state's Special needs education budget by 62%. Look at any on-line budget. The 2008 budget moved a large line item out from under "Special Schools" to its very own category. Look at the individual items contained under "Special Schools." In FY2007 the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy (ACYA) was a line item under "Special Schools." In FY2008 it was it own Budget Item. The above difference of 5,109,300 is just under the 5,449,300 that was designated in FY2008 for the ACYA. So the truth is Palin increased spending and moved items on the budget around. ACYA was given its own budget line because that school is for troubled teens rather than kids on special education and/or disability.

Other sources will tell you that "a second part of the measure raised spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (emphasis added)."

Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/newest_palin_smear_she_cut_spe.asp

Welcome to the new world order.

The only good candidate was Ron Paul.
Of course many are not aware because of CFR owned media.

This will only continue and more of our freedoms will be taken away. Of course after we attack Iran which obama is for too.

Youtube. Cfr nwo IMF or. Ron Paul

Tell me exactly how we know that Palin is going to be an "advocate" for my daughter and my family in the white house? I still have not heard one solitary plan, point or example of what she and McCain are going to do to help families with Autism, or this country for that matter...unless of course you consider "drill baby drill" a policy (and if you think that is help, then perhaps there is no help for our society). Just because Palin has a son with special needs, doesn't mean she speaks for me.

Btw, many of you failed to mention Obama's response to vaccinations in which he states: "I believe that every American has the right to access these screenings, and I believe that every American has the right also to refuse these screenings voluntarily if they so choose. I also support a thorough and independent review of our nation’s vaccination policies."

All McCain has publicly stated was that there is "strong evidence" about a thimerosal link...most everyone agrees with that. He has said nothing about being against giving vaccines, being for selective vaccines, or even doing away with them, so please tell we what is McCain for that is so appealing and different? And, even more so, what are his PROPOSALS???

Claudine,
Your conversation with Senator Obama is what prompted my call in plea. What it told me is that we have not had the chance to show him our Science. McCain has had meetings with parents from our community and wrote a letter to the HELP committe to have them do Senate hearings on thimerosal. Obama says he is also against mercury in vaccines and will remove it. However the fact that someone has not been able to show Obama our science is concerning. Presidents are put in a bubble with little outside influence and if we do not cry out to him now there is less of a chance we may be able to hold his attention for the science on our side. This plea was not to tell someone who to vote for, it's a plea requesting an opportunity to pass on our information and science to Obama himself.

K you said McCain's staff is loaded with Big Pharma lobbyists. Did you ever read CNN's Aaron Smith's article entitled, "Big Pharma opens wallet to Dems: Liberals have lost their reputation as the long-standing foes to drugmakers as party lines become blurred with McCain?" (March 08). If not, read it and weep.

"Obama maintains a slight edge over his Democratic rival, with $181,000 in Big Pharma donations through Jan. 31, compared with Clinton's $174,000, according to the center. McCain is far behind with $44,000."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-helen_31_bdaug31,0,6582382.story?track=rss

About two weeks ago, CNN Headline News had a crawl that said something like...

CDC: highest number of measles cases since 1997 ... CDC: nearly half of measles cases in unvaccinated kids

I could not find an article on their website that made the same statements, but it would be helpful to find this data. Consider: if "nearly half" were in unvaccinated kids, then "more than half" of the measles cases must have been in vaccinated kids.

CRAWL THAT CNN!

I was impressed when Senator Obama responded to A-Champ’s questionnaire to presidential candidates nine months ago. He responded, "I support the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines and work to ensure that Americans have access to vaccines that are mercury free.”

But now I wonder, is he calling for non-selective vaccination before or after the thimerosal is removed from all vaccines?

He also stated in that same questionnaire, “I believe Americans should know must know (sic) the health effects that [are] caused by the presence of mercury in vaccines.”

Does that mean forced vaccination is acceptable as long as Americans “know the health effects” caused by the mercury they and their children are receiving?

And in answer to the question, “Should vaccines be investigated as a possible source of autism?” Obama did not say "no.” He instead said, “I believe that the next president must restore confidence and open communication with the American people. This includes environmental policies and government funded research. An Obama administration will go where the science and the facts lead us, whether it’s about climate change or toxic heavy metals in our environment.”

His answer clearly implied that vaccines should be investigated as a cause of autism – or at the very least, not ruled out. Yet we now hear that he stands for a one-size-fits-all, mandatory vaccine policy.

Unless we learn that Claudine Liss was experiencing the auditory hallucinations of sudden onset psychopathy, I cannot possibly cast a vote for Senator Obama. Even if Senator McCain states nothing further on the subject of vaccines, that’s preferable to Obama’s comment last Friday at a private fundraiser.

A total of four members of my family have now switched their votes to McCain as a result of this revelation. No issue trumps the government-sanctioned poisoning of our children.

Hey Claudine, scroll down to read McCain's statements regarding Autism. He has publicly declared that "there’s strong evidence" that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S.

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/john-mccain-ent.html

And in case you missed this, Orac (the Big Pharma shill over at Respectful Insolence), disapproved of McCain's stance. Here's what dear old Orac said:

"No, no, no, no, no!” wrote Orac, the anonymous scientist at Respectful Insolence. “McCain needs to replace his medical and scientific advisors forthwith and find some who understand science and clinical trials.""

Source: http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/1794/john-mccains-autism-comment-prompts-outrage-in-the-science-blogosphere

Stark contrast between McCain's remarks and dear old Opharma's (credit AL over at AL for new nickname).

Further, in case you don't know this, during Palin's speech at the convention she stated that if elected families of children with special needs would find her a friend and ADVOCATE in the White House. Not only does she have a Down Syndrome baby, but her nephew is Autistic.

Source: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-message-to-special-needs.html

Tim,
They gotta give me something. Either attack the thimerosal issue OR the boatload of shots our kids are getting before the age of two. Why the $@#$ is Obama worried about Polio when 1 out of 94 boys has autism, a potentially life-long and seriously debilitating condition. Is he prey to the post 9-11 fears of plain old flu viruses and hoax bird-flu pandemics (the two are currently being lumped together in a flyer sent home with my kindergartener last week!)? Is he immune to our plight because his daughters were unaffected? I'm just surprised he hasn't done more research on this topic and I sure hope he or his staffers are reading our post.
According to an Inside Autism poll, 54% of parents of autistic children believe there is a connection to the vaccines. I think that is a signficant demographic.
By the way, I'm not rushing to vote for McCain either...I may just stay home this year.

"Nobody in power is willing to do a study comparing rates of these conditions among vaccinated and unvaccinated kids."

Anybody can do this kind of study. The CDC does not control research. In fact, I am doing scientific research right now and the CDC, FDA, and FBI have ignored me.

"Individual people badgering their reps in DC is the only way we are ever going to get the study that we need done."

So, you want the government, who you all claim in cahoots with Big Pharma, to conduct a study?

Anyway, at least vaccines got rid of smallpox.

Senator Barack Obama’s vaccine response should not influence your vote! Why? We have not yet heard from Senator McCain! Would John McCain have answered me any differently? If he did, would he truly mean it? I am thankful for Obama’s honest response. Another reminder of how important our grassroots education campaign is to our nation. Right now, grassroots is the only way. It is what it is. It appears to me that BOTH of these candidates have avoided the controversial “vaccine” topic. Avoid it all you want, it is not going away. Who is going to get a response directly from Senator McCain?

Rachel - you said you "would vote for the candidate who will promise to BAN mercury from vaccines IMMEDIATELY upon taking office" - Well it's settled then:

George Bush is your man!!! - since that is pretty much what he said 4 years ago. Important lesson, no?

All kidding aside, it is important to remember the candidates are going to do whatever they believe is the best approach to get elected. I doubt John McCain's advisors will even LET him stick to his guns on being vocal about his doubts on the safety of thimerosal for the rest of the campaign - The biggest test will be when and if he responds to future direct questioning on it.

The reason that both parties mentioned autism in their speeches is that they now understand the number of voters involved - simple math. Not so simple math is the fact that biomedically informed voters like us are far and few between - sorry, but I believe Autism Speaks wins that count by a landslide - I dare say most parents of children with autism probably believe whatever A.S. tells them.

I love to hear and encourage the passionnate and strong voices here, but let us not let politics divide us and keep us from achieving our ultimate outcome - to be able to unite to educate the winning administration beginning on November 5th.

;oD

If indeed Obama isn't for 'selective vaccinations,' then in an Obamanation the CDC's schedule will be further shoved down our throats. I do know McCain publicly stated that Autism is caused by thimerosal.

The Dept of Education is doing a fabulous job on covering up the actual number of learning disabled children as well as the real number of Autistic children. Not only has the curriculum been "dumbed down" repeatedly over the years, but so have the Special Education Assessment Tests, SATs and so forth. There is something really WRONG with this picture when a 13 yr old cannot add, subtract, multiply, divide, or comprehend more than a paragraph of reading material and the parents are told that there is nothing wrong with his test scores! In fact, the scores are AVERAGE when compared nationally to others his age. I am urging everyone to investigate the Special Education/IEP process and how difficult it is for your child to qualify. The numbers are far greater than 1 in 6 learning disabled. I am estimating that as much as 80% of the children in this country are learning disabled. This is a national crises!

Glenn Beck is also investigating Obama's secret "Public Allies" group too. Yes, another secret of Obama's. So far, it appears that he feels everyone is obligated to contribute to society for the "greater good". Kind of sounds like forced vaccination, huh? For the sake of the phony herd?

Also, take a close look at Obama's answers in this scientific debate, particularly Pandemics and Biosecurity.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

Before deciding over the next two months on voting, and yes corporate special interests are both candidates’ path to failure for stopping mandated vaccine injuries, look at their overall approach to health care. Here are two viewpoints posted as blogs on Adventures in Autism September 3, 2008 at http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/

From Barack’s web site;

“Barack Obama believes we need to research treatments and search for the causes of ASD. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for ASD research on the root causes and treatments.” http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/DisabilityPlanFactSheet.pdf

From a McCain voting record site:

“McCain Has Voted To Cut, Restrict, And Underfund Medicare At Least Twenty-Eight Times” from 1995 to 2005.

“McCain Voted To Cut, Eliminate, Restrict Health Insurance Coverage for Low Income Children and Pregnant Mothers At Least SIX Times” from 1997 to 2007.

“McCain Voted Against Allowing Uninsured Parents To Enroll In The Same Plans As Their Children” in 2000.

“McCain Opposed Reauthorizing SCHIP And Providing Insurance For Millions Of Uninsured Children.” in 2007.
http://mccainsource.com/mccain_fact_check?id=0006

I agree with Tim K (well except about the whole "Packers" thing).

This election is about far more than just this issue. War, health care, debt, spying on citizens...

But if you consider just the Supreme Court change, that alone should scare the hell out of everyone.

And IF that change to the court becomes overly conservative, when (and probably not "if") the vaccine-autism thing reaches that court (vaccine court ruling -> state courts [if the supreme court doesnt change this possibility and move all such litigation away from state courts to federal courts and a ruling on that is coming up!]-> appealed to Federal Courts-> moved to Supreme Court) are you going to want a probusiness oriented Supreme Court of judges?

With lobbyists and big money controlling candidates and legislation, the vaccine issue is always gonna be us against whomever is receiving that $ - be they democrat or republican. Pharma has enough money and lobbyists to hedge their bets on both (because that's still cheaper than facing the lawsuits and losing those markets).

I'd love to know what both of the candidates stands are on Codex Alimentarius and what they are going to do about it.

Obama has lost my vote.

Come on people....

If you are seriously making your decision on who is going to lead this nation the next 4 years based on Obama's and McCains public comments about the National Immunization Program, you need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

I have my man, but that is not the point here - regardless of who you support and plan to vote for, there is far more at stake here than the our concerns about vaccines and autism. There is the Supreme Court for one.

Important, yes of course, but really, how do you expect them to say anything else? They hear every firggin day, just like most americans, that vaccines save lives and anything they say that puts that into question is going to push away voters.

McCain said something earlier this year about his suspicions about thimerosal thanks in no small part to Lin Wessels, but has quieted down and is more careful with his words since that time. Obama has never really been up to speed on it so of course it was easy for others to put the fear of God into him. As for Pharma campaign contributions, they were going to go to someone for sure, and I think they saw there best investment in Obama. Do you really think McCain would have turned it down? Get real.....

I understand the importance of getting the candidates opinion. I understand your passion. But do you really think that the position of President has more chance of changing things in the FDA, CDC and the medical community than WE do? That is a big HELL NO. I have always believed the president does what he is told to do and that is that. The strings are pulled and he (or she) will always salute.

WE are the change. Whoever becomes president will be left with the mess of not only the war in Iraq, the slow economy, housing and environmental nightmare, but by 2012 it will be quite evident that the 90's generation has become adults. I predict the generation of kids born after reduced thimerosal levels, though affected by increased vaccine schedules, will finally show a "decline" in the RATE of autism (Kids under 8 in 2011) as evidenced by special ed counts. Can't say the same about all the other health issues vaccines result in though.

That president, whoever it is, will see the fit hit the shan and we will be there to remind them of what we asked them in 2008.

Please vote on ALL issues, not just one.

BTW, Go Packers!!!

This is really sad across the board.

I don't like to hear anyone with any kind of political clout quote Pharma talking points.
All party affiliations aside.

The reality is... Polio exists today because oral vaccine is given to poor under developed countries, despite it's known risks to pass fecally.
It's cheap and can be mass produced.
Then it gets imported by immigrants flying here due to the globalized society in which we live.
So if you are immune suppressed or don't hold a titer this mass practice of giving a risky oral vaccine is more dangerous than a few thousand people skipping Polio.
The whole reason we switched to an injection was because of the oral diaper risk.
The last case that hit the Amish population in Minnesota was passed in a hospital setting from a foreigner who was recently vaccinated with the oral vaccine.

This Obama statement is disappointing, but it is also a typical Pharma line of thought.
I'm not voting for Obama, but I don't think we should suffer to let that error go unaddressed.

I hope if elected, he will bring true CHANGE as promised. Not the same old politics in bed with Pharmaceuticals.

I am honored to be listed with all of the outstanding scientist, who have concluded that vaccines both for adults and children carry with them risk with questionable benefits.

I think that Senator Obama just does not get it. He, like so many other politicians, has only one agenda, to get elected. Therefore, he has taken the politcal safe message on vaccines, just give them all.

Sincerely,

Mayer

Well that just ****ing sucks. It would be nice to have a choice this election. Talk about the Scylla and Caribdes-- perpetual war for hegemony or vaccine mandates. Or both.

In my once astonishingly rugged family line, m father is dying from flu shots, my children are struggling from that and more, my second cousin almost died from the MMR, my nephew has asthma. But how's anyone going to pay for the epidemic if we're at war for "100 years"?
http://tinyurl.com/5rd3gy

This is hell.

Here is a link re. Obama's contributions from Big Pharma vs. McCain's. I think it is relevant to this discussion.

Big Pharma opens wallet to Dems
Liberals have lost their reputation as the long-standing foes to drugmakers as party lines become blurred with McCain.

By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: March 7, 2008: 2:40 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Democrats have long served as the traditional enemy of Big Pharma, but in this presidential campaign, the left is taking the lion's share of drugmaker money.

Democratic senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the top recipients of donations from the pharmaceutical industry, according to The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, non-partisan research group in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, donations to Sen. John McCain, who was recently endorsed by President Bush as the official Republican candidate, pale in comparison.

Obama maintains a slight edge over his Democratic rival, with $181,000 in Big Pharma donations through Jan. 31, compared with Clinton's $174,000, according to the center. McCain is far behind with $44,000.

This is in spite of the fact that all three candidates have consistently bashed the pharma industry and vowed to lower drug prices, which would take a bite out of corporate profits.

But it wasn't always this way. Big Pharma, voting with its wallet, used to be more of an enthusiastic supporter for the Grand Old Party.

In the 2004 presidential election, drugmakers donated $516,000 to the Bush campaign, a huge increase over the $280,000 provided to Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate from Massachusetts, according to the center.

A changing climate
There are two reasons for the recent shift in funding. The Bush administration may still control the White House, but Republicans no longer control Congress. Democrats hold the majority in the House, and the parties are evenly split in the Senate. Drugmakers could be trying to secure access to the ruling party by courting their traditional enemies.

"Since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, money has shifted away from Republicans, to the Democrats who hold the keys to the kingdom," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for The Center for Responsive Politics. "The pharmaceutical industry is one that would lean Republican if it didn't have to make friends with the party that's in power right now."

Merck spokesman Ron Rogers said his company has never announced support for a specific candidate and "has always sought to work with both Republicans and Democrats on the issues that affect pharmaceutical innovations whether one party or the other has controlled the Congress of White House."

Schering-Plough spokesman Steve Galpin said his company has not donated to any presidential candidates. Other drugmakers contacted on this issue - Pfizer and Eli Lilly & Co. - did not comment by press time.

Secondly, the distinctions have blurred between the two parties' relationship with big business. Democrats have traditionally been seen as enemies to the pharmaceutical industry, while Republicans are supposed to be their allies.

"I think what you can say about the philosophical divide is that the Republicans as a party believe in free markets and the Democrats want to socialize our healthcare system," said Barbara Ryan, pharma analyst for Deutsche Bank North America.

But with McCain as the conservative contender for the White House, the issues are no longer black and white. Ryan noted that the current campaign lacks hard and fast party differences in healthcare. In fact, the policies from of Clinton, Obama and McCain are uniformly unfriendly toward Big Pharma.

The high cost of prescriptions
Much of their political ire is focused on drug prices. All the candidates co-sponsored a bill early last year to allow the re-importation of U.S.-made drugs back from Canada, where they're cheaper. But the bill failed to pass the Senate.

McCain, who has described himself as "the biggest enemy of the pharmaceutical industry in Washington," has been particularly vocal on re-importation.

"Why shouldn't we be able to re-import drugs from Canada?" he asked during the New Hampshire republican debates in January. "It's because of the power of the pharmaceutical companies."

"Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," countered Mitt Romney, the former presidential candidate who has since dropped out of the race.

"Well, they are," said McCain.

Campaign crosshairs are also focused on the Bush administration's ban on drug-price negotiations between the government and drug companies. This ban was included in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. Removing it could result in lower drug prices, which would put the squeeze on pharma sales.

Obama and Clinton have clearly stated that they oppose the ban on price negotiations.

"[Clinton] has been very much against the non-negotiation ban, said Gene Sperling, her economic advisor, as well as former director of the National Economic Council for former President Bill Clinton. "She feels that that puts the government in a worse position than a big company."

Obama, on his campaign Web site, has vowed to repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, estimating it could result in savings of up to $30 billion for patients.

McCain's stance on this issue isn't clear. When Democrats failed to pass a bill last year that would have eliminated the ban, he wasn't present for the vote. McCain's office did not return calls and emails asking about his position on this issue.

Business as usual
But even with all the political rhetoric, Wall Street doesn't seem to be paying attention.

Paul Alan Davis, manager of Charles Schwab's $800 million healthcare portfolio, which includes holdings in Pfizer (PFE, Fortune 500), Merck (MRK, Fortune 500), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, Fortune 500), Schering-Plough (SGP, Fortune 500) and other major pharma companies, said he wasn't sure which of the candidates posed the biggest shake-up for the industry - if at all. He also said that the campaign is not a factor in his investment decisions.

"I think it's probably easier to talk about change to get votes than it is to actually change the system," he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/companies/pharma_votes/index.htm

Before my life included vaccine damage, I had only a vague notion of the benefits and risks of vaccines. I vaccinated my children, but remember a friend of mine telling me that her pediatrician threw them out of the practice for choosing not to vaccinate.

I said, "Wow, that's terrible." And I meant it.

Without even thinking about it, it was clear to me that she'd made a decision that she believed was in the best interest of her child, and she had every right to make that decision.

To be against selective vaccination is to be in favor of forced vaccination.

To be in favor of forcing any medical procedure on someone who is unwilling to accept the risks of that procedure is morally wrong.

You do not have the right to force me to risk my child's life so that your child can be safer.

You do not have the right to make me risk my life so that your life can be safer, because you are not of greater value than me, nor is your child of greater value than my child.

You can encourage me, you can persuade me, you can appeal to the best interests of my child, you can even appeal to my interest in the greater good, but you cannot force me to endanger my child so that your child is safer.

You can remove my sick child from your school if he has a communicable illness.

You can choose not to socialize with me, or with my child.

You can call me names, and you can protect yourself from me, but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, and your right to wield a toxin-filled needle--even in the name of the greater good--ends at my child's arm.

This is a basic human rights issue.

Anyone who is in favor of forced vaccination is unfit to lead a free country.

And I was for the guy.

Terri Lewis

I believe its fairly clear why Senator Obama is against selective vaccination.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/companies/pharma_votes/index.htm

This has been a real hard choice the whole time. Let's see, who should I choose, the war hero proud to be an American guy who has a history of trying to curb big corporation influence over political decision-making (Campaign Finance Reform) I have been reading about and rooting for since 2003 or the guy that came out of nowhere, doesn't salute the flag, and wants to take people's rights away? Sorry if I offended anyone, I have this horrible habit of speaking my mind.

And please also ask this. Comparing the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rates between the years 1967 and 1983 of 3.4 per 10,000 and the CDC rate of 1 per 150 children in 2002 and then using an annual birth rate of 4 million children per year in this country - calculates out to an increase of 25,307 more children each year with ASD. Why do babies born today have a 19.6 times greater risk for autism than the babies born 25 years ago?

Sad thing is even if McCain said the opposite, I wouldn't believe it. I would believe an institutionalized pathological liar before I ever trusted McCain to stick to his words.

As shown by previous platforms contrasted to his voting record, the man has flip flopped more than John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hilz combined. His choice for VP shows he has absolutely no integrity or core beliefs -- he'll do anything to seize power, including allowing the scumbags who trashed him, his wife, and adopted daughter (makes me sick how they made that little girl disappear) in South Carolina to engineer his campaign tactics.

I see another lost opportunity shaping up with Obama. Too bad. Individual people badgering their reps in DC is the only way we are ever going to get the study that we need done.