Greg (or anyone else),
Can these parents in New York not take a religious exemption to the flu shot for day care requirement? If not, why not? Hobby Lobby last summer found that the state cannot play religious police, and must just take the word of parents claiming a religious exemption.

"This is where the battle-lines will be drawn between the ultra elites and slightly less affluent and influential."

Absolutely, Greg. And now we have spiraled backwards to right where we were in the late 80s and early 90s, when doctors/pediatricians were quietly skipping or delaying vaccines for their own children because of known inherent risks/adverse events, while openly vaccinating the rest of our kids into severe and lifelong disability.

And now with so many in the vaccine safety movement buying the media's idea that being anti-vaccine is an insult rather than a choice based upon cold hard disturbing facts, you could say we've not made one bit of progress at all.

And now we get kids like German Lopez and Ronan Farrow, etc. -- obviously true believers -- spewing recycled Gorski bullshit without any true investigation of facts. And who in their generation is going to call them on it? My husband was a student teacher observing a high school science class awhile back. The topic was vaccines and the teacher stood before the class and told them flat out that Andy Wakefield is now in prison for what he 'did'. Do you think any of those students are going to tear themselves away from their iphones or Facebook long enough to verify this statement? No way in hell.

These next ten or twenty years are going to get very interesting as all these little true believers grow up and have their own kids jabbed into autism. Wonder what they'll say about vaccines then? And it's also going to get interesting as they clash with several generations of autism siblings who know the real truth about what happened to their vaccine-injured brothers and sisters. I guess you could say this whole debate is just getting warmed up.

I only wish that all those who are now coming out as "not anti-vaccine" would qualify their stance by describing it as something like: "I'm anti-vaccine until doctors and vaccine manufacturers are once again held liable for damages done by vaccine injury." Perhaps if we'd all stated it this way back in the early 90s, something might have been accomplished by now, sparing today's infants from having their lives TRASHED by our corrupt and downright criminal medical profession.

Jeanette Bishop, hopefully that law would only apply to school entrance so at least children would have the first 5 years to either get these vaccines or document a medical reason for exemption. Hopefully the hep B vaccine at birth could still be declined. Of course, hopefully the law won't pass. One problem is that modern medicine and science don't even know how to identify who is at higher risk for an adverse reaction.

Curious story, i found this story from when Vox posted it on their facebook page. i went on to add comments on their facebook post, then sometime later i wanted to revisit the post and could not find the story on their fb page. For a moment i thought they had deep-sixed it , but it was still on their website. But after checking every post on their fb until i arrived at older posts from last week, i just could not find it again on FB. Vox' website doesnt allow comments, but FB does. I am somewhat suspicious they didnt neither or appreciate the amount of pro-choice comments received.

Thanks for the unintentional laughs from reading Vox's hopelessly biased and piteously lame "expert" sources.

Aside from this would-be Jimmy Olsen's misuse of "which" instead of "that," his monosyllabic final overgeneralization carries all the stilted tin-pot bravado of a Pokémon cartoon battle.

What a sad testament about the intellectual depth of the copy-and-paste generation.

Fantastic summary, Greg. Thank you...

@Jeanette and others, I think this info is helpful re forced vaccination.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120950/courts-have-upheld-governments-constitutional-right-vaccine-laws

That’s when the three parents joined forces and mounted a constitutional challenge to New York’s vaccination requirement. They threw the book at the state, arguing, among other things, violations of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as under state and municipal law. The rub of their arguments: that the state was infringing on their liberty and religious interests. A federal judge in Brooklyn dismissed all their claims.
That’s when the Second Circuit court, as it’s wont to do on appeal, took up all of these grievances anew and rejected them one by one. Citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the 1905 case,a three-judge panel ruled in a short opinion that New York was well within its “police power” to mandate vaccinations for schoolchildren. Since immunizations are “in the interest of the population as a whole,” the court said they trump the parents’ individual wishes. The court brushed aside their claim that “a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that vaccines cause more harm to society than good,” noting that only the legislature—and not the parents or the court—could make the call on the alleged body of evidence.
Turning to the parents’ religious claims, the court relied on a 1944 case, Prince v. Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court stated that a parent “cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds.” The court went on to note that the First Amendment right to religious freedom “does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” And because the law compelling vaccinations is neutral—that is, it applies to everyone and doesn’t specifically target a particular religion—no constitutional violation occurred. Plus, two of the parents had received exemptions, so the court viewed New York’s limited exclusion during an outbreak as permissible.
Of course, the ruling is only binding within the context of public education; nothing prevents the parents from homeschooling their children and keeping them vaccination-free. And it remains to be seen whether these parents will be appealing to a higher court to review the case. But given that the Supreme Court has already spoken loudly on the matter, here’s hoping faith in the judgment of the courts and the rule of law will prevail.

This article essentially summarizes where the law stands on barring unvaccinated kids from school. Should the parents do go ahead and take the matter up with a higher court, most likely they will also lose. Is all hope then lost in the fight against forcing parents to vaccinate their kids in order for them to attend public school?

Recently, I saw the movie ‘Selma’ and was quite taken by the depiction of the keen sense of strategy employed by Martin Luther King and other activists in their quest to remove the barriers that impeded Blacks from exercising their right to vote. Perhaps the anti-vaxx movement can learn from this:

The court is essentially saying that the liberty to not to vaccinate does not permit one the right to put the community, or other kids at risk. It goes on to say that the parent still has the right to homeschool their child. Clearly the crucial issue then is the protection of other kids, or specifically vaccinated kids who seek protection against infectious diseases. Yet, what about other unvaccinated kids who are not opposed to being exposed to infectious diseases. What would be the court’s position if ‘anti-vaxx’ parents decide to get together and send all their kids to a private school? If they all agree to this what grounds would the court have to oppose this arrangement? Even more, why must this school remain privately funded? Do the parents not have grounds to argue that since they pay tax for education such a school should be publicly funded? If this option of an anti-vaxx school were workable, perhaps pro-vaxxers would be wise not to force the issue of forced vaccination.

So, Cooper tried to blame Congressman Burton for the measles outbreak, due to his efforts to get mercury out of vaccinations that contained it, of which MMR was not supposedly one anyway?

The fundamental truth regarding vaccinations--One size does not fit all. Some kids appear to handle thimerasol and others clearly do not. That point we certainly understand. Lopez maybe would get it with a slow, careful explanation of the science.

However, Anderson Cooper just needs more vaccinations, no antigens, just the weight adjusted doses of thimerasol and then he might begin to see the light. Throw in some aluminum too and now we have a real guinea pig, kind of like our children.

Looks like vaccination science and policy to me.

Vox Media also owns several other online media outlets, including The Verge, which, surprise, surprise, is being "Guest-edited" by Bill Gates this month. As for the folks over at Vox, they are true believers, not objective journalists. A few of their recent articles include "Christie is wrong. Vaccination is not a personal decision. It's a social obligation," and "Obama supports vaccines now, but pandered to anti-vaxxers in 2008," and "Melinda Gates has the perfect response to the anti-vaccine movement," and the most hilarious of all - "Even ISIS supports getting kids vaccinated." There are many, many other similar articles on Vox, who's editor-in-chief is Ezra Klein, formerly of the Washington Post.

Dan, I admire your strength and dedication to the truth.

Sorry to obsess on a tangent, but I just referenced p. 168-9 of Mark and Dan's book Vaccines 2.0 to see that as of now California requires DTaP, MMR, Polio, Hib, Varicella, and HepB (I hope that atones if my tangent is not very welcome), so essentially with the proposed legislation one would have to qualify for a medical waver to opt out of any vaccines given in the first year unless one might try to negotiate a delay until school age and hope to have that RESPECTED (if they don't think you have a medical reason to say no, why would they think you have any business setting your own schedule), in other words your baby, or possibly a sibling, has to already have immune or vaccine related health problems to avoid acquiring immune vaccine induced problems! What does that look like with HepB at birth? Home-birthing is the only option or leaving the state if you feel you need to deliver in a hospital? What happens in Mississippi and West Virginia? Near 100% hepB at birth compliance (referencing p. 172)?

What otttoschnaut said. Dan made some good points and came across well.

And I think a lot of people who go to the "references" such as Gorski's blog will see the hostile biased tone. Not like citing actual research.

Dan approached the interview with a righteous conscious. The other person, had alternative motives. It would not have mattered if Jonas Salk was also being interviewed at the same time and stood up and said: that mass inoculation with the polio vaccine, was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1955. Hermie Lopez would have completely ignored it like it was never said or acknowledged that it was said but that was not the focus of the interview so it was never put into print. Anything Dan said was going to be framed in a way that suited the pharma industry. That's how things are rolling for now so if anyone else gets approached for an interview, even for a high school newsletter-beware.

It is great to be invited to interview on this topic.
I find myself constantly trying to recall lots of facts, figures, journals, scientific research papers, dates, the names of Researchers, politicians, journalists etc so that when I get into dialogue with people who hold directly opposing views I can do a decent job of not only defending my position but stopping them in their tracks with facts.

It is a tough job but keeping those facts to hand is part of my life's work now as I am (and others like me are) constantly under attack.

Cooper seemed nervous. All he did was to spout off the CDC's and NIH epidemiological studies. Nobody is particularly impressed by those anymore. Cochrane has basically called them out as insufficient. I wish Burton had mentioned the fact of the whistleblower. You can bet Cooper won't have the nerve to debate anyone else on the issue like Dr. Wakefield.

I was contacted by five or so journalists (Newsweek/Time to name a couple) who wanted to interview me re this so-called measles outbreak.

They wanted my private phone number, which I refused to provide to them. Instead, I opted (with just a couple of them) to send links to other interviews (such as Lawrence Palevsky and Dr. Russell Blaylock), as well as to links documenting the Simpsonwood issue.

I also provided a couple of them with the story as to what happened to our son. One of the journalists responded by telling me 'thank you for an interesting read,' but that was the summation of her response. No questions as to what had happened to our son (although she wanted to include his name in her Newsweek story about the time he contracted mumps from a just recently vaccinated little girl).

I told her no. Our son didn't want his name smeared all over her report, either. But wow - she went for the gusto; she wanted private information, etc., so forth, all the while 'feigning' horror re what had happened to our son.

I didn't buy her 'compassion' one bit. I knew we were in line for a set up, so I didn't bite.

Further, I never received one response from any of the other journalists re any of the links I had provided to them.

When I took some time to delve into some of these journalists' backgrounds, all but one of them were youngsters, literally, who most likely have no idea how to do true research. Most likely they're being given their marching orders from others on high, who have instructed them to ensnare some of the more outspoken of us who have dared to trample on the party line. They're simply doing what they've been told to do.

True research is not what their bottom line/final product is all about. These young journalists are nothing more than minions of the party line. They simply fall in line, write what they are told to write, and have absolutely no idea where to even begin with a story as complicated as this one really is.

To be fair, in the past I have dealt with a few reporters who were fair with me when they spoke to me and quoted me precisely in their final coverage. But for the most part, I have to say I am extremely leery doing any kind of interview with someone who wants to do a 'brief writeup' and/or wants to only give you 2 to 3 minutes of your time to a radio interview.

When I hear those two things, my hinky meter dials up a few notches because I know, then, that they are not interested in getting the facts about this issue. Their sole interest is to twist my words and spout the party line in their final draft.

Most of these journalists work for mags/media bought and paid for by guess who. Their marching orders are probably along the lines of, "see if you can snare this individual for an interview, then leave them with egg on their face."

Californians will never stand for that trampling on parental rights especially when it's their children's health at stake.

This is still the best talk about vaccines and autism, in my view:
http://www.screencast.com/users/JerryZimmer/folders/Autism/media/4918a2cb-40eb-4522-aca3-a534585d07eb/embed

MMR in particular is discussed at 35:33

And then there's...

"To summarize, of the 58 empirical reports on autism and heavy metal toxins [such as mercury-containing thimerosal], 43 suggest some link may be present, while 13 reports found no link. Even with the tendency for null results not to be reported, it cannot be said there is no evidence for a link between heavy metal toxins and autism: although the question may still be open--in sum, the evidence favors a link."

"Sorting out the spinning of autism: heavy metals and the question of incidence," DeSoto and Hitlan, 2010

http://ane.pl/pdf/7021.pdf

David M Burd:
Like you ottoschnaut is a long time wonderful blogger - a good person that knows vaccines are linked to not just autism but across the board brain injuries.

I think his point was; In spite of this writer trying to lead the reader in statements like debunked - a negative slant on Dan-- he felled.

I agree! IT was pretty bad -- poor guy Or maybe he did it on purpose -

Anyone reading itwill come away with more things to think about and maybe even make them curious enough to look further into the matter. And you know, and I know, and ottoschnaut knows if you just scratch the surface --- hmmmmm.

The 49,000 poor souls maimed in India by Melinda Gates ? NPAFP ?

The 1000 killed in Chad by the meningitis C vaccine ?

The HCG sterilisations via Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya where the Roman Catholic Church is STILL refusing to play ball ?

I dont get it .

You could have shown this person the before and after pictures of Gardasil (which I would describe as neurological devastation and a crime against humanity) ?

And of course asked this so called reporter to publish .

When I showed poor Zeda Pingel to my MP , who at the time was dismissing me as a "badly misguided" , she nearly fell off her chair ! You could have done that ?

Vox last week had an article on those ignorant anti-vaxxers spreading deadly disease so when I read Dan did an interview with them I wondered if he knew this. Apparently not.

I think, for this particular juiced up bogus false flag health crisis, anyone who agrees to do any interview should just tell whoever the stenographer is requesting it to just make something up because that's what they are going t do anyway. Same thing happened to Marcella Piper Terry who facilitates Vax-Truth. TODAY Show producer Kat Keene called for an interview, she agreeded. The interview was 30 minutes and when it aired the show played 4 sentences from it that made her sound hysterical. There is no doubt in my mind that there is an organized agenda and the media is right in the thick of it. Who owns the media-big pharma.

You know what, Dan- I actually like the interview, despite the headline. Lopez gives you the opportunity to present your points. You get some good thought provoking concepts out there for curious readers to pursue.

The best part of this article is how Lopez tries to refute your science. He has to resort to Snopes, Science Blogs, and Gorski. That is remarkably unconvincing. People who run down the science will quickly see this.

Call this article a win for the truth. I hope it gets widely read.