But I do lay this on President Obama. I also lay it on everyone who came before him. Our president should not be exonerated just because those who came before him are also complicit. Why should Obama be considered guiltless?

The only thing worse than ignoring an issue completely, is pretending to face it head on.

Mercury is still in flu vaccines, and to ignore that fact while simultaneously preaching about the importance of removing it from our childrens food and water..... well that's just disingenuous.

History will always remember you for what you did, never for what you promised to do.

He is our president though. And He and the Democrat Congress did do something about health care and health care insurance in this country.
And --- not have health insurance, fear of not having health insurance, and people that were caught in the web of being sick, and then being bankrupted was strangling lots of folks in this country.
My hopes and prayers that he and Congress did succeed in this. AND For that I am grateful!

Obama is just like most other politicians ... who say whatever is needed to get elected, without the slightest intent of ever following through.

Obama to me is about as genuine as a game show host. With my apologies, of course, to game show hosts everywhere.

Michael;
Carol is a "regular" here, and well LOVED! She always brings really astonishing articles here for us to read. Where, and how she finds them, I don't know, but everyone is worth a thought and a read. She is one great researcher is all I know
But it would be confusing if you did not know her.
Carol and I am with you Michael

"Keeping the Internet open and not controlled by the politically correct is essential for the free flow of ideas, which will ultimately lead to the truth."

Beautifully stated!

A little surprised that no one seems to have commented on Carol's post. She lumps not believing in evolution with thinking that vaccines play a role in the development of autism and criticizes the likes of AOA. Her solution is to censor the Internet in some way, so that only the politically correct views are highlighted. It might be good for Carol to review the history of scientific and medical breakthroughs because if she did this, she would learn that virtually every useful and correct view was met with resistance and ridicule by people like her. A few brief examples include: (1) Gallileo was criticized for believing that the earth wasn't the center of the universe; (2) Harvey was ridiculed for believing that the heart pumped blood around the body; (3) many sailors died from scurvey because the powers that be refused to believe that scurvey could be preventd by lemons or limes (containing vitamin C); (4) many people became ill and died from the disease pellagra because of resistance to the belief that some food component (in this case niacin or vitamin B3, rather than a virus) caused the disease and (5) Dr. Semmelweis was ridiculed for suggesting that the cause of puerperal fever was related to doctors not washing their hands before delivering babies following their trips to the anatomy lab where they dissected dead bodies. Numerous other examples could be cited. When all is said and done, some day it will become absolutely clear that the current vaccine schedule was largely the cause of the autism epidemic. Keeping the Internet open and not controlled by the politically correct is essential for the free flow of ideas, which will ultimately lead to the truth.
Michael B Schachter MD, CNS

Well Obama won't back down because he never stood-up. He is a hypocrite and a coward.

Following on from Carol's comment:-
http://www.infowars.com/uk-d-notices-to-go-worldwide/
"Google and the British government are working together to sweep websites into Orwell’s memory hole. It is a joint effort that will soon go worldwide as the global elite continue to build and refine their censorship apparatus."

...and from John Stone's Shakespearean parody about ghost writing (on another thread):-

US manufacturers of vaccine mercury preservative Thiomersal decided to call it Thimerosal, as if sticking a rose in the title will make this dangerously toxic substance 'smell sweeter' in the noses of the public....or even Presidents!!

"People who deny global warming, oppose the Darwinian account of evolution, refuse to see the causal link between HIV and AIDS, think that 9/11 was an inside job [and think that vaccines may cause autism] have put the Internet to great use. Initially, the Internet helped them find and recruit like-minded individuals and promote events and petitions favorable to their causes. However, as so much of our public life has shifted online, they have branched out into manipulating search engines, editing Wikipedia entries, harassing scientists who oppose whatever pet theory they happen to believe in, and amassing digitized scraps of "evidence" that they proudly present to potential recruits....

What to do then? Well, perhaps, it's time to accept that many of these communities aren't going to lose core members regardless of how much science or evidence is poured on them. Instead, resources should go into thwarting their growth by targeting their potential—rather than existent—members....The options aren't many. One is to train our browsers to flag information that may be suspicious or disputed. Thus, every time a claim like "vaccination leads to autism" appears in our browser, that sentence would be marked in red—perhaps, also accompanied by a pop-up window advising us to check a more authoritative source. The trick here is to come up with a database of disputed claims that itself would correspond to the latest consensus in modern science—a challenging goal that projects like “Dispute Finder” are tackling head on.

The second—and not necessarily mutually exclusive—option is to nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like "global warming" or "vaccination." Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries? Thus, whenever users are presented with search results that are likely to send them to sites run by pseudoscientists or conspiracy theorists, Google may simply display a huge red banner asking users to exercise caution and check a previously generated list of authoritative resources before making up their minds."

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/01/anti_vaccine_activists_9_11_deniers_and_google_s_social_search_.html

Slate should be renamed Slag.