Sorry Jake. We disagree and see the world differently.

Dan's comment re: political views was posted some time after I submitted my post--but in any event I read his message differently than you. It seems to me that he is saying all political viewpoints are welcome here, but perhaps I misunderstood. If he was indeed saying stop any political commenting, then I would have thought you would not have replied to my post. I am not going to respond to your post point by point to avoid continuing the discussion too far off the topic of autism and vaccines, but I do want to respond. First, I think you brought up some good reasons to be very unhappy with the Obama administration.

I don't think Obama can reasonably be held accountable for everything that everyone in his administration has said or done, but I will certainly agree that many things that have happened and been said by some during his administration relating to autism, and also environmental protection, have been very disappointing and extremely maddening. However, I could say that same thing about every administration that has held power in my lifetime.

I honestly do not have a complete picture of what all is in the healthcare plan ratified by the Supreme Court today, but to my knowledge it is not built around the idea of forcing everyone to take vaccines. I am hoping maybe some enterprising group will offer insurance that favors those who refuse vaccines and seek alternative health care options. If there is something in the law that would make that impossible, I would be interested to learn specific details.

Perhaps none of us have the power to sway politicians whose livelihoods depend on corporate mega-contributions, but keep in mind that both sides are subject to the same influences. If you think Obama can't be swayed due to corporate contributions from pharma, why would you think that Romney could be? I think that I have no greater chance of convincing Obama of anything than you have of convincing Romney. But that doesn't mean we both shouldn't try.

I will never vote for a person who puts corporate profits over environmental protection, no matter what their rhetoric on vaccine rights. You will never vote for someone who does not give some indication that they support individual freedom of choice regarding vaccines. I truly wish there was a candidate we could both vote for, but unfortunately that choice does not seem to be available this time around.

There is clear common ground between environmentalists who oppose mercury and other toxic chemical pollution and those of us who oppose mercury containing vaccines (and amalgam fillings). But I doubt we will ever find that common ground if those who oppose mercury-containing vaccines team up with folks who oppose environmental protection and also engage in the same sort of name-calling behavior towards people concerned about the environment as Orac et al engage in towards those who are calling for vaccine safety and freedom of choice.

I do fear what the future holds for a country of people who seem increasingly unable to listen respectfully to each others' concerns and seek common ground. Hating each other and screaming at each other gets us all no where.

Good luck to you, personally. Still, I sincerely hope your candidate loses.

I also hope someday you understand that the future health of all children everywhere is deeply intertwined with the fates of the bees and the bats - as ridiculous as that may sound to you now.

Peace.

To Jake: We are likely screwed no matter who wins. But we will be screwed even worse if Romney is elected.

Romney is pro-business, pro-corporations, pro-power for the rich and elite, anti-environment and thinks we have enough oil to last us til the second coming, so no worries. Even if you could avoid vaccines (an option which I haven't heard Romney say he supports), but you don't have a decent job, you don't have clean water, you don't have breathable air, the bees and bats are gone, you are being evacuated from your home due to increasing incidence and severity of floods, hurricanes, tornados, and wildfires, and the oceans get any more acidified by even more CO2, then life is going to be extremely tough, if even possible.

Everyone, vaccinated or not, needs a healthy environment. And any who oppose essentially all government regulation of corporate profit-making are not friends of the common people. Democrats have the vaccine issue all mixed up because, in general, they tend to trust scientists and science and they have been wrongly convinced that scientists and science are on the side of vaccines, herd immunity, etc. Educating them otherwise is not an easy undertaking when the media keeps quoting "experts" who chant the science is in, the science is in. That is exactly why the Quackwatches and Oracs of the world exist and why Wakefield was so ruthlessly attacked. Their rhetoric is strategically aimed at making people think that anyone stopping to question vaccines is an idiot who can't understand modern science. This strategy is necessary because anyone, especially any scientist, who takes the time to actually stop and question and look at the available information is going to come up with a lot more questions than answers and a lot more doubt and serious concern, than feelings of trust and certainty.

Unfortunately, the bullying, name-calling, tinfoil hat strategy works too well with many people. I suspect that the Tea Party's endorsement of the Canary Party stance will only add weight to much of the public's perception of the controversy. The Tea Party also doubts global climate change and ridicules climate scientists and seems to be against regulating pollution from coal burning, as well as most if not all other environmental laws. IMO this paints them, as a group, as anti-science and anti-conservation/environment--and therefore, imo, NOT the team-mates the Canary Party really needs.

Vaccines may be a big part of the problem with all the sick kids today, but unsafe levels of lead and mercury in foods, air pollutants of many sorts, the use of a slew of chemicals of unknown safety in a multitude of consumer products, and an array of other environmental issues are very likely contributory.

The stats you post re: pharma donations are interesting, but they only tell part of the story. The way things are now, donors can choose to make a candidate look bad by donating, while secretly supporting the other candidate with secret and huge contributions to superPacs like Crossroads America. Powerful corporations have ways of keeping all their bases covered--which means they donate to both sides--where the full weight of their donations falls is anybody's guess at this point. The Supreme court that brought this situation to us was a result of Republican appointments to the bench. This same Republican dominated Supreme court is the one that ruled against individual rights to sue vaccine makers due to the unsafe nature of vaccines. Do we really need more Republican appointed Supreme Court justices ruling against individuals and in favor of corporations? That is what we will get with another Republican in the White House.

Romney has a record of saying whatever he thinks will get him elected, and no doubt Obama does the same to some degree. This is a chess game with a tapestry of conniving, cheating players, so simplistic analysis of candidate statements and donation records, while somewhat informative, unfortunately doesn't show the whole messy picture. Obama certainly has a better record, though far from a stellar one, in terms of caring about the environment and caring about public access to health care. I judge him possibly educable on the vaccine topic, despite his statements.

IMO if you vote Romney, you are voting for corporate rights over your own and all children's health.

The actions of Obama and his administration will definitely harm children with autism and has harmed them already.

President Obama does not now, nor has he ever supported vaccine choice. If not mistaken, his precise words when asked about it were, "I do not support selective vaccination." We cannot nor will we support any who do not support or right to choose.

Kent came to our group, the East Bay Tea Party, asking for our support in opposing mandated vaccines. He was pleased to find that we were already aware of the issue and actively opposing this intrusion on our individual liberties and freedoms of choice as parents.

The East Bay Tea Party regularly works with groups, regardless of party affiliation to oppose government intrusion and subversion of our parental rights. Forced vaccination is a violation of our parental rights and puts our children in danger.

We thank Kent for joining forces with us and will continue to vigorously support his groups efforts in spreading the word throughout the Tea Party community.

As a liberal democrat who very much wants to believe in both the power of science and the power of government to make people's lives better, I am continually appalled by the party-line votes on vaccine issues, particularly in California. I get the Sun Tzu, Art of War, enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. I am happy there are allies in the cause. However, from a liberal POV (which objectively speaking here in CA is the group of legislators who must be convinced that there is a HUGE problem with the vaccine program - democrats), getting the Tea Party on board (or the Donald, or the Playmate, or Chuck Norris, or or or...) is not going to move the needle in our favor. It might even be a talking point they use to shore up their own wrongheaded position with the public. The republicans who might court the Tea Party and listen to their concerns already are voting on our side.

Fundraising and actively working for the dems opponents in November? That might help. Sending people to EVERY public debate/event they appear at between now and the election, asking them hard questions like whether they REALLY believe 12 year olds are capable of making their own medical decisions (AB499) without parental approval or notification, and if not why they voted for this terrible bill, or if doctors should have sign-off on personal and religious beliefs (ab2109) and if not why they support that legislation; challenging them in public forums and getting their replies on video, posting it online for all to see -- now THAT'S something useful. Fundraising to run ads and mailers against them in their own local markets.

If the Tea Party can help with THAT, then fabulous. The Dem lawmakers need to be made to understand that their own voting constituents are against them on this issue.

It's such a web , so confusing, I believe I understand the basics. It seems these little "wins" may well disguise the intent on the broader scale. Of course I , as a mom who doesn't vaccinate, want badly to have the right to choose, yet I do continue to want health programs to be available to all children, including the poor. I will bite the bullet and continue a one man fight for my own rights before I will be accepting of one small step, when the real deal includes diminishing current health care gains for children, by limiting funding and taking away health care credits. Personal ,of course, my take, of course, I just observe a group wanting to promote their religious beliefs of saving the unborn, only to offer nothing to promote the health and well being of living children. Giving us rights, sounds wonderful. ..but I need some convincing. Just what is their stand on providing health care after they take away Obama care, how many children will have uninsurable pre-existing conditions ? Will we be back to the "benefit bull roasts" so Johnny can have a shot at life?

Imagine if all the organizations that advocate for individual rights and those groups sounding an alarm over our toxic environment demanded philosophical exemptions for every American. There is great power in joining forces! Happy to see this in CA. Happy to see "The Greater Good" http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/home is getting continued exposure.

The grassroots movements are incredibly powerful and there are lots of them.

Anne Dachel, Media

Well done Kent. It sounds like you played a pivotal role in raising the consciousness of this branch of the Tea Party on the issue of vaccine choice. You can bet that Pharma is watching, and its vaccine propaganda will be sent to every branch of the Tea Party from here on out. The Greater Good must be circulated to Tea Party branches nationwide.

Democrats who believe strongly in the damage the vaccine program is doing to a generation of children will have to take out a clothes pin to vote this November. I'm no fan of Dave Weldon's pro-Life views, but at this point, I would vote for him if I lived in Florida, and if he won, I would work to oppose his position on that issue. To me, ending vaccine damage in children trumps nearly everything else.

Hard choices will have to be made in the voting booth.

The liberal politicians (mostly democrats) who are in agreement with utilitarian philosophy (and Marxism) have long had too much influence in mandating vaccination policy, especially since Jimmy Carter and Clinton. Only the Reagan administration attempted to acknowledge the moral responsibility of taking care of the vaccine injured by passing the national childhood vaccine injury act. Albeit, the law has been misused to shield vaccine manufacturers from liability while aggressively denying injury claims, so it is still far from working equitably.

As Barbara Loe Fisher states, (link here: http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/tracking-system-and-privacy/the-national-electronic-tracking-registry.aspx)
"The erosion of medical freedom and privacy under the guise of protecting the public health is a threat to individual liberty. It is a threat to the very foundation of freedom as we have known it since the Constitution was ratified in 1787 and amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791.

A de facto medical dictatorship, which has been set up by government health officials using police powers assigned by state legislatures, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jacobsen v Massachusetts, fueled by federal funds, and aided by politicians eager to believe that doctors should track citizens "for the greater good," is destroying the most sacred of all individual freedoms: the human right to self determination.

The human right to choose what one is willing to die for or, in the case of a parent, what one is willing to risk a child's life for is a basic human right. If the state can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on what individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

Utilitarianism Should Not Be Used to Force Vaccination
It is time for Americans to call a halt to the immoral use of utilitarianism by government to force citizens to comply with public health policy that forces medical risk-taking without voluntary, informed consent. It is time for us to reclaim our right to freely and privately choose the kind of health care we want for ourselves and our families.
"

Remember those words and what FREEDOM really means the next time you vote for BIG GOVERNMENT-loving politicians.

I have never been partisan. I have always voted using my conscience and never chose a party. When I read things like this, I am very glad I made that decision. I will not always agree with either the democrats or the republicans. But in the key areas in which we do agree, I support their efforts, whatever party they happen to be.