Bottom line is regardless of anyone's take on the political landscape-the question that needs to be answered is, what is TRUMPS plan for the Vaccine Cause? No one has answered that?

Agree with Barry!

i'm with Trump!

While I appreciate Trump's willingness to say what is on his mind, without much reflection on how it will be received, I believe his ability to create the kind of positive change that is needed is beyond his grasp. It is not enough to simply say that vaccines may be the culprit for the autism epidemic. We need more than this, we need to get to the root of the problem and in my opinion, Sanders is our best bet. While he may have put the vaccine issue aside in his early comments on the subject, the fact that he wants to revolutionize dysfunctional processes and institutions, is exactly the kind of change we need. Once this type of political questioning and change occurs, then it is just a matter of time before Pharma is brought to the spotlight. This process will take time but we need to start somewhere. We need truth and we need it for the right reasons. Only Bernie is conveying this message. He has my vote.

A former government official's perspective of what we are "working" with or up against trying to work with the federal government:

http://soaringeagleradio.com/?p=443

There's not much discussion of vaccination particularly, but I believe her insight explains much of what drives much of the (or much of what I've found naively) inexplicable, and might be a worthwhile resource for those wanting to engage in improving their communities in various ways.

My son's Autism was caused by the MMR vaccine 28 years ago this month. But I can't vote for Trump just for his vaccine stance. He terrifies because he is a bigot, bully and mostly because he is incredibly impulsive. His vaccine stance wouldn't do us much good if he decided to drop a nuke on another country. It's also clear that his vaccine stance will do ZERO to change what is happening in this country re: vaccine injury and mandatory vaccines. The smoking gun has been sitting with Bill Posey (R Florida) and he has been all but ignored by congress. Trump won't change that.

Dr. Kostoff,

You said that some 90% of African American South Carolinians voted for Clinton. I say, so what. That means that 90% of South Carolinians voted for Clinton. Nothing less. Nothing more. The rest of the country did not elect South Carolina to represent it.

How would you feel if they came out with: '90% of South Carolina's college professors voted for Clinton, therefore all college professors will vote for Clinton'?

You say:

"For national elections, about 1000 people will be sampled, following appropriate protocols to obtain representative sampling, and those results will be extrapolated to ~100 million voters."

I think polling of any kind is illegitimate. It leads, manipulates and destroys the process. You know how judges will sequester jurists so that they can't be influenced by the press or by public opinion? That's how elections should be run. The candidates should be able to present themselves to the public. There should be media stories and investigative reporting regulated by stiff federally imposed criminal penalties for malicious slander/libel from the media or in ads that are directed at the voting public. We should be able to talk freely among ourselves and ask questions. There should be an ongoing forum where the candidates have to answer OUR QUESTIONS, like the ones that you pose about glyphosate, vaccines, EMFs, autism, and then after THE PUBLIC has had a chance to vet the potential candidates, WE should choose the candidates in primaries - no delegates, no special delegates - all of US from every town and city coast to coast - all on one day - and then after a contest between those candidates there should be a final election - on one day.

And, importantly, the media should not make a dime off of the election. That they have turned our elections into reality TV with debates treated like boxing matches has to stop.

Otto Schnaut! Thank you! Your comment also got me to think of another way to get doctors to wise up. I doubt if that can be implemented, but here is:

Any doctor who starts practicing pediatric or any kind of medicine needs to take courses on how to best poison you enemy. That would give him a good understanding how toxicity works. Especially mercury would have to be studied. It is such an insidious poison.

After that he needs to spend an 8-hour day with an autistic person all by himself without any parental interference. That would include diaper changing feeding and activities such as getting the child on the school bus and researching how to improve the child's quality of life.

Unfortunately one day is really not enough to convey the true reality of it all. But it gives the good pediatrician an inkling.

Trump is the ONLY candidate to speak out and is not controlled.

Linda1,

"And I think it is a tremendous insult to any group or segment of the population, in this case African Americans, to be told that they will all vote alike. This scam strips people of their individuality, their individual right to vote, and is stereotyping. Why people accept this nonsense is beyond me."

I don't know where you get the idea that African-Americans were "told that they will all vote alike ". What analysts of the SC polling results have done is little different from what the pollsters do in predicting the outcomes of national elections. For national elections, about 1000 people will be sampled, following appropriate protocols to obtain representative sampling, and those results will be extrapolated to ~100 million voters.

For SC, the assumption is that the African-Americans who voted in the Democrat primary are representative of the African-Americans who will vote in the Democrat primaries of other Southern states. Is that a good assumption; I have no idea? We'll find out when voting results are in from these other states. We'll also find out how consistently the other demographic groups vote across states for both the Democrat and Republican primaries (Christian Evangelicals, Jewish, Muslim, etc).

Is there something unique about SC that would make the demographic voting distribution radically different from that of the neighboring states? Nothing comes to mind off-hand.

I do agree with your main point about the potential biasing effects of the present primary system. There are a few demographically non-representative states like Iowa and New Hampshire that tend to set the tone and momentum for later voting. If the Parties want to maintain a staggered voting structure, then the early states should be selected to be more demographically representative of the whole country. Maybe we have four voting days, each a couple of weeks apart, where each of the quadrants has similar demographics. This would reduce the time and effort of the total campaigning process, and generate less up-front bias.

Birgit, thank you for your comment below. A common cultural understanding must be established, an understanding different from what the medical establishment and pharmaceutical corporations want to foist off on us.

We have been carefully taught to know things like what "selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors" are. Huh??? Can a coherent explanation be given?

Better than smart sounding words, I think most people are capable of understanding circuits in the brain. Engineers who understand backplane circuits of computers should be especially able to understand signal processing in the brain. Hardware circuits sometimes break. Likewise circuits in the brain can be damaged by pharmaceutical stuff that we feel proud to recite.

Also, how can obstetricians blindly follow the protocol to clamp the umbilical cord immediately after birth? One of my most vivid memories of 10th grade biology was learning how the anatomy of the heart must change after birth, to redirect circulation from the placenta to the lungs. How can basic physiology be forgotten in favor of "smart" use of a surgical clamp on the umbilical cord, to finish up birth in a hurry???

If it is not doable, then it is the end of the human race?
It has to be doable.

Linda1,

" The whole thing is a rigged scam."

Of course. Most people who have run for the Presidency have had local, state, and many times Federal offices. They've been 'vetted' in each office, and they've been supported by the so-called special interests. At the Presidential level, they need tens of millions of dollars to pass the entrance threshold. Whoever lasts the full campaign will require about a billion dollars on each side. Donors will not give this money out of the goodness of their heart. So, there's tremendous pre-filtering by the time a person even becomes a candidate.

Then, there's the Press. The information the electorate gets about a candidate typically is filtered through the Press (except for televised rallies through C-Span, or rallies attended in person). If you examine the WaPo or NYT, they have their favorites and non-favorites, and that reflects the objectivity of the articles they post. If you notice, they, and the cable channels/networks, give Sanders almost no time. While they give Trump plenty of time, the articles they publish about him are almost universally negative. Since most voters are not going to research the candidates, what the Press gives them is what they go with.

Then, there's the voting. There are arbitrary rules about who can vote, and typically it is easier for the more affluent to vote than the less affluent.

So, yes, it's rigged from start to finish. Aside from that one debate, how many questions did you hear about the dangers/desirability of vaccines? Of EMF? Of glyphosate? Of Atrazine? Of.........? What more did you learn from the tenth debate that you didn't already know from the fifth debate?

The networks want to maximize revenue. They do it by stringing out the debates and stirring excessive interest in the competition. They also do it by not offending their advertisers, who include the telcoms, Pharma, the big energy companies, etc.

That's why I believe that real change on the above issues will not come from the top down; the 'top' is dominated by the influence of the aforementioned industries, as is the Press. The only way change can come will require circumventing the mainstream media, perhaps using social media as an organizing tool. It's a daunting task, and it is not obvious to me that it is doable. We may have passed a tipping point!

After watching Trump make fun of a disabled reporter, I do question his empathy for individuals with disabilities. I also question what politicians say when trying to get elected - Bush promised to get mercury out of vaccines; Obama promised to be the autism president. Neither of them followed through...or even tried to.

When I see more substance on the autism/vaccine issue (not just a sound bite) from any of the candidates, I'll begin to give them some credence. I'm looking for actual statements in a position paper or on a campaign website that actually have a plan attached.

Bernie there is no connection between vaccines and autism. He is a liar.

Linda1,

"Since when does South Carolina decide anything for other states?"

The importance of South Carolina was the overwhelming preference of African-Americans for Clinton (~90%). This was higher than Obama polled in 2008! And, many of the Southern states have a high percentage of African-Americans in their population, and especially in their Democrat-leaning population. So, unless there was something anomalous about the South Carolina African-American electorate, the results do not bode well for Sanders in many other demographically-similar states.

re: "I actually think that anyone that rehashes that old stuff is a dyed in the wool Democrat that can't get over losing."
That's kind of like saying to the parent of a child who was injured by thimerosal-preserved vaccines, "Anyone that rehashes that old stuff is a dyed in the wool anti-vaxer that can't get over their child not being perfect."
If something is wrong, it's wrong - even if it happened years ago.

Dr. Kostoff and all,

"I don't see him having any chance of winning this election, especially after the message sent by the South Carolina voters."

That's another way that the election is rigged. Since when does South Carolina decide anything for other states? Not trying to bash the state but since when is South Carolina a leader? Seriously. Why should any state send a message to other states?

I have long thought that primaries should be held coast to coast on the same day, so that states can't see who is leading in other states, so that people can't vote for the person who they think is winning, rather than the person who would get the vote based on what they present. We don't have final elections piece meal like this. Why the primaries? To lead the public in a certain direction. Well, since so and so lost Iowa and NH and SC, guess they're out. Why? We have 50 states, and 3 decide who the candidates are? On top of that, there are delegates and special delegates to make sure that the voting goes a certain way. That is not a democratic process. That's something else.

Thank you, Dan. I have recently decided just about the same thing.

Maureen:
Thank you so much of giving me a good laugh this morning from your comment! Exactly!

Danchi; Al Gore vs Bush; Oh Please! I assure you that both parties were watching this close and I actually think that anyone that rehashes that old stuff is a dyed in the wool Democrat that can't get over losing. I don't mean to be mean, but it is time for a lot of party members reflex on themselves and understand that their Faith is not in God or Fate but the goodness of men that lead a certain party.

Dan,

"After that, I can’t think of too much that pales in comparison to ending a disabling epidemic now affecting 1 in 30 boys"

Ending autism is certainly important. The first step in ending autism is identifying the major cause(s) of autism, and then eliminating those causes. Your post, and many of the comments that follow, make the assumption that the major cause is vaccination, and therefore electing a candidate who would make vaccination a matter of personal choice would go a long way toward solving the problem.

I don't think the vaccination issue is that simple. The MMR vaccine, for example, was licensed in 1971 (https://vactruth.com/history-of-vaccine-schedule/). Single dose appears to have been used until ~1989 (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S141/F1.expansion.html); (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S141.long), at which point the second dose MMR recommendation was made. The graph in the reference above shows the MMR vaccination rate to have been approximately constant since then, although other vaccines have been added to the schedule.

Since the mid-90s, the autism rate (in children age 6) has risen by an order of magnitude (http://www.medicaldaily.com/autism-rates-increase-2025-glyphosate-herbicide-may-be-responsible-future-half-316388). As the figure in the reference shows, that rate mirrors quite well the increase in use of glyphosate. Of course, correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but, when supported by one or more mechanisms, it provides a compelling argument. Dr. Seneff provides a plausible mechanism(s).

Cell phone subscriptions have also risen dramatically since the mid-90s, and, at least of as a few years ago, correlated quite well with the increase in autism (https://www.bellyarmor.com/radiation/health-risks/autism/). A number of researchers have provided plausible mechanisms, one of the more compelling recent ones being Dr. Martin Pall (http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism-epidemic-caused-emfs-acting-calcium-channels-and-chemicals-actin). He also believes there could be synergy between EMFs and toxic chemical stimuli. A recent interesting article (http://haltmasmartmeters.org/the-elephant-in-the-classroom/) addresses the role of WiFi radiation in neurodevelopmental disorders from a more popular perspective.

Undoubtedly, there are other contributing factors from the list of 800+ that I identified in my recent eBook (Pervasive Causes of Disease) that would have some degree of correlation with the rapid increase of autism we have seen over the last two+ decades. The point is, if MMR vaccine usage has been roughly constant for the last two+ decades, and if autism has been increasing dramatically over that period, it is hard to make the argument that MMR VACCINE ALONE is responsible for the increase. On the other hand, given the vast anecdotal evidence from many parents of how their children regressed shortly after receiving MMR vaccination, it is clear that the MMR vaccine, and possibly some of the other vaccines that have been added to the recommended schedule, ARE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. The question is: how does the MMR vaccine (and other vaccines) contribute to the development of autism (and certainly many other diseases) within the context of parallel increasing exposures to glyphosate, wireless radiation, and many other potential contributing factors?

The short answer is: I don't know. One possibility is that the vaccine(s) reduce the ability of the body's defensive (mainly immune) systems to withstand the onslaughts of the myriad toxic stimuli like glyphosate, wireless radiation, etc. Under this scenario, the vaccine becomes an enabler of autism (and perhaps many other serious diseases). Or, these other adverse factors provide the weakening function, decreasing the immune system's ability to fight the antigen introduction from vaccination. Could the increased rates of autism have come about without the introduction of these vaccines, since these increased rates parallel the increase in these other toxic stimuli? Who knows; that's not the experiment we, as a society, decided to run. My guess is that each of the toxic stimuli we added to children's exposures contributed to the increasing rate.

The point is, we really don't know the degree of contribution of vaccines to the increasing prevalence of autism. We don't have the data, and given all the toxic stimuli in the present background, we may never be able to get the individual contributing factor data based on human being studies.

The only conclusion that makes sense to me, in the absence of such data but in the presence of increasing trends of many modern-day diseases, is to follow the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle would dictate that we remove ALL THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN PARALLEL until our research shows any of them to be 'safe'. Then, they could be re-introduced if desired. In other words, we transition from the present approach of introducing toxic stimuli before they have been shown to be safe (and pay the severe penalties afterwards), to introducing these stimuli only after they have been shown to be safe in credible and long-term safety studies.

From the political perspective (which is the focus of your post), which candidate would be most likely to eliminate the major potential causes of autism? Overall, I would guess Sanders. He seems to have been the most outspoken against the plethora of environmental insults, although, as pointed out by a number of commenters, he has stated his support for vaccination. I don't see him having any chance of winning this election, especially after the message sent by the South Carolina voters. I don't see any of the candidates, including Sanders, doing anything about limiting EMF wireless radiation, and many of the other potential causes of autism.

I see almost complete unanimity within Congress in resisting changes in vaccination policy, wireless radiation policy, etc. In other words, change in required policy is not going to come from the top down; it has to come from the bottom-up. Our so-called 'leaders' have to be forced into making these changes by the electorate. Since the majority of the electorate appears to support the present vaccination, EMF, etc policy, I fail to see the pathway that would lead to the prevention of autism, and many other non-communicable diseases, other than the near-impossible task of changing the opinion of the majority of the electorate.

Dan responds:

"I appreciate all the diverse comments here. my point is that trump represents an unexpected opportunity to -- possibly -- win this thing going in the front door, not standing around at the service entrance begging for a meeting with the assistant deputy secretary for fobbing people off so we can claim we listened to them."

It is disappointing to read so many "diverse comments here" .. where I would hope we all agree this upcoming election may be our last hope for another four years to FINALLY begin to reign in the out-of-control federal public health regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical-vaccine industries they PRETEND to be regulating.

For all the admitted short-comings mentioned by those who are adamantly opposed to voting for Trump .. none of which argues with the fact that HE alone .. is the ONLY candidate .."on the public record" to raise serious questions of the prevailing POLITICAL orthodoxy .. (BOTH PARTIES) .. the number and timing of so many vaccines .. so soon in a toddler's life" .. has absolutely nothing to do with the epidemic of autism .. because .. the "science is in" .. and .. that science proves vaccines are SAFE and EFFICIENT.

If I have to choose ONE candidate who I want to hold responsible for APPOINTING the next leader of the CDC, FDA, HHS, Surgeon General, etc .. I want that ONE candidate to be SOMEONE who is free to appoint the BEST qualified people .. rather than appointing a person hand-picked by the LOBBYISTS-CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS of the pharmaceutical and vaccine industries.

Hey vote for whomever you want .. just don't fool yourselves into believing your choice is going to have a "come to Jesus moment" regarding vaccines .. AFTER they assume the office. That ain't gonna happen.

I don't this discussion is really going anywhere. If anyone expects to find a presidential savior candidate for our children they are deluded. It is the wrong political model. We need to organize and act more along the lines of Act Up or Black Lives Matter. Show up and ambush candidates and officials and candidates with questions they can't/don't want to answer. Bring out kids. Angry mothers shouting. Make them fear us. There are no better angels among this very lot of "presidential" candidates. Whoever wins will be a loss for the country, and we have little option but to frighten (seen little evidence of shame) them into action.

Twyla,

Your comments are alway appreciated by me, so when you say Trump is "not qualified to be president" it makes me think of the others' qualifications: Clinton, a complete liar her whole life & strong vaccine advocate; Sanders, one failed carpenter job his whole life and super-Socialist & strong vaccine advocate; Carson, a great medical career but mostly a vaccine advocate and indoctrinated to support vaccines; Rubio, young & little tested & not a vaccine critic as far as I know; Cruz, great legal mind but mum on vaccines as far as I know.

Stopping the Vaccine Horror is paramount - damn the "personality" factor.

A presidential candidate who is on record about vaccines' dangers, and who most likely would veto a Congressional Bill that MANDATES vaccines MUST win the coming election.

There is no more important issue; other "personality traits" people don't like are a far second consideration. Of the remaining candidates only Trump and Carson (Trump much more strongly) qualify. I am greatly disappointed RFK, Jr. has joined the Sanders' camp.

I don't believe that Trump could cause the world to be destroyed by a meteor, but I do believe he could increase the chance of a nuclear war. His temperament is unbalanced. He constantly threatens people. For example, he said that he wished he could punch out an audience member who was heckling him. He vacillates between liking people who kowtow to him, and lambasting these same people if they criticize him or cross him in any way. He knows little about foreign policy or international relations, but he constantly proclaims that America will win and makes threats such as saying that we should take Iraqi oil or kill the families of terrorists. Granted, sometimes family members are accidentally killed in the course of a war, but to deliberately target families would be a violation of the Geneva Convention and basic human values.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428719/kill-terrorists-families-gangsta-trump
This combination of bad temper, bluster, ignorance, and his many racist discriminatory comments make me worry about the possibility of this man having the power to make war, and being responsible for the kinds of negotiations and relationships which can prevent war.

Another thing that could be even worse than the epidemic of autism and other neuro/immune system disorders is the possibility of life as we know it ending on planet Earth due to global warming and pollution. Trump says that he wants to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Asked by host Chris Wallace who would protect the environment in the absence of the EPA, Trump said, "we'll be fine with the environment… We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.”

Perhaps if I trusted Trump I would consider being a one-issue voter, even in the face of possible world destruction via war or environmental catastrophe. But there are a lot of reasons not to trust him, for example Trump University:
"Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam"
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432010/trump-university-scam

Trump rails against immigrants, yet there are allegations that he has illegally employed immigrants who did not have the right to work. His contractor apparently hired over 150 undocumented Polish immigrants to demolish the property at the site where Trump Towers was to be built.
"Trump Tower Got Its Start With Undocumented Foreign Workers"
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-says-controversy-over-his-tower-was-trumped-n397821
Not only that, many of the workers weren't paid for some of the time that they worked. Trump claims that he didn't know what his contractor was doing. This is unlikely. Moreover, a president must know how to pick the right people to work under him/her and know what they are doing.

Trump says that we should do more manufacturing in the U.S. and that goods made in China are of terrible quality, yet his line of clothing is made in China, Mexico, and Bangladesh.

He says that he will build a wall on the Mexican border, and that he’ll get Mexico to pay for it. When the former president of Mexico said, “We’re not going to pay for your f-ing wall,” Trump acted so offended by the use of the “f” word, yet Trump himself often uses the “f” word, as well as the “s” words and a couple of “b” words.

Trump is very wealthy, yet many of his businesses have been failures, and he has declared bankruptcy on behalf of several of his companies. Trump vodka went nowhere, Trump Airlines was turned over to creditors, his mortgage company lasted 18 months, and his gambling hotels/casinos have gone bankrupt three or four times.

Trump’s plan for a health insurance is no plan: “Oh, we’ll have lots of plans… We won’t let people die in the streets.”

Trump is just a businessman with a flare for self-promotion. He is greedy, ignorant, arrogant, angry, temperamental, and not qualified to be president.

Still, if he actually had a plan for reforming the vaccine program I would consider voting for him. But he has never come out with any such plan. He’s made a few general statements, but so have lots of people who later back down. He has not said anything about vaccines nor autism lately, as far as I have heard. Maybe it’s too hot a potato to touch while campaigning, but who knows what he would do about this as president, if anything?

I always appreciate your Weekly Wrap, Dan, and I almost always agree wholeheartedly with everything you write! But I will never vote for Donald Trump.

“The importance of ending the autism epidemic pales in comparison to …” Not addressing Global Warming - if there is a chance that we still have time.

Barry,

Interesting article. Unfortunately Trump's behavior and statements in the debates, on the campaign trail, in his previous tv appearances on "The Apprentice," and everything I have read about his business practices have shaped my opinion of him. You are right, I don't know him--but based on what I do know, I don't want to know him. And it will take a lot more than reports of him giving a few silver coins away to a few people to change my opinion of him.

Think about this: He says he is worth 8.7 billion dollars.

So a donation of $100,000 is equal to .00001 percent of his wealth.
(100,000/8.7billion)

That is like some one who is worth a million dollars contributing $10.00 to some cause he /she cares about. (10/1 million = .00001)

It may have been nice of him to pay off the mortgage of the people who helped him, but assuming the mortgage of the people who helped him was likely not more than a few hundred thousand dollars (if that), his "generosity" was (relative to his income) on the scale of what most of us were paying for a tank of gas just a year or two ago.

While he didn't have to do any of these things that you seem to think indicate he is a nicer person than he appears to me, these actions don't create any impression in my mind that he is a generous person.

How many millions has he contributed to help children injured by vaccines? To pay for lawyers to help parents fight the government in the vaccine court? Is giving generously (like millions) to support the NVIC or Generation Rescue or Safe Minds? What about that employee whose child he says was hurt by vaccines--is he now paying for that child's treatments and care? Or did he fire that employee because she couldn't work any more? Enquiring minds would like to know.

When he says he is anti-immigrant and wants to make America great, but seems to go out of his way to hire people from outside the country to work in his companies …
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431933/donald-trump-foreign-workers-american-workers-arent-good-enough

….sorry, but I don't find him particularly trustworthy or honest.

Name-calling seemed Trump's primary contribution to the recent republican debates. In the partial episodes of "The Apprentice" that I had the misfortune to see, he came across (to me) as just a mean spirited egotist. Maybe that was show biz, but what kind of role model is that?

There is much justified resentment on this board about the ugly bullying behavior by the science skeptic trolls, and much concern about bullying of children with autism by other children (and adults). So why would any of us want a grown up who repeatedly engages in, and apparently prides himself, in bullying type behavior to become the leader of our country?

No thanks. No Trump for me.

After his comments on banning Muslims from entering the US, I had to give up on any hope (thin as it was) that Trump could be the guy.

Sanders is not perfect either, but he's the only one talking about getting Citizens United overturned, and THAT, my friends, is a crucial part of the big mess we are in. Pharma and friends love Citizens United. They love super PACS. Sanders isn't playing that game -he's crowd sourcing his campaign.

Ending the autism epidemic is going to require us to go to the root of the problem, and that means overturning Citizens United to limit corporate power. Ending the autism epidemic is going to be a lot like recovering a kid from autism. It's a long, hard road with no promise of ultimate success. But we keep working at it in spite of the regressions and challenges.

I'm an optimist by nature. Autism is tough on that, but I have to believe it can get better. I have great respect for you, Dan, but I disagree on you. I think Sanders is more likely to challenge the corporations than the corporate candidate.

The big question is, does Trump actually care or is he simply trying to expand his constituency? I don't know the answer to that, although I wonder how much of what Trump says in general is what he truly thinks. Like all politicians do to a certain extent, he says what he thinks his target audience wants to hear. His strategy seems to be to say things that cause a media backlash, get himself lots of attention and appeal to the growing percentages of Americans that are dissatisfied with the status quo. Who knows what he'll actually do if he gets the office? If vaccines are truly an important issue to him, why hasn't he said anything more about the issue in months? Why isn't he mentioning the CDC whistleblower?

It would seem that as Mr. Trump believes the US medical system needs some major changes...

he would make a few campaign statements on the endless fraud at the CDC, and the trashing of American children for the past twenty-five years by the vaccine industry.

Day one of the 2017 Trump administration should rescind all vaccine mandates, indict proper CDC officials & install Dr. Andrew Wakefield as head of the HHS.

This discussion increasingly reminds me of one that occurred 8 years ago. A number of commenters here were absolutely convinced that Barack Obama would care and that he would be "the autism President" - in spite of his statement that he was not in favor of "selective vaccination" and that he only used autism as a weapon against his opponent. (The opponent had stated on national television that he was in favor of finding a cure.)

That did not turn out very well.

Benedetta, thank You for Wendell Berry (sp?)

And to everyone: I like Trump! Has there ever been a candidate w/o an ego? Has there ever been an autism parent of kid without an ego? even Mother Teresa had an ego. Only Jesus was probably ego free and He's not a candidate! And I'll bet He will help Donald.

It is my belief that the iron law of physics will explain and prove how mercury caused harm to the central nervous system paving the way for damage in turn to the immune system and to the many functions dependent upon the control of a healthy brain. Physics is developing at a high rate because of sophisticated new tools of observation and measurement. This will be one field in which pharma will be unable to turn reality on its head.

Tony Bateson, Oxford UK

I forgot:

XXXX is a VERY BAD PERSON. VERY BAD. EVERYONE knows it.

I don't think a president can do anything about the vaccine injury epidemics until it reaches a point that the president cannot do nothing...maybe we already hit that point with the establishment of the IACC... I mean, I think the CAA was a major accomplishment in a way with Congress, but do we now want an "autism czar" or something else potentially Insel-like?

In my view we already had a bully-pulpit moment (that's the most I think a president might be empowered to do on this issue) from Mr. Trump in the Rep. Primary debate... (just my speculation) that was probably part in thanks to a media agenda to make the debate about the crazy things Trump has said (maybe to keep the debate from informing us in regards to the other candidates?), and someone (or maybe some computer program...?) thought the vaccine issue was safe for that formula...and partly because we had three at least somewhat informed candidates either at least somewhat reluctant to turn their backs on disabled vaccine victims, or maybe with all the vaccine mandates coming out wanting to stand with the right (their right) to medical freedom, or maybe thinking that the truth is out enough that they're taking a risk trying to hold up the bogus pharma line (at least I wondered if that was what was happening at the time). I appreciate that they risked the other side, offending pharma (and/or certain "elitists" maybe).

(ok now too much opinion from me, but...) There was rampant rule violation and many "irregularities" in the 2012 primary election when there was an increasingly popular (with grassroots) presidential candidate (though never mentioned except in a dismissing way in the "mainstream") on the Republican side and then a grand display of total shut out...not even a convention floor speech, never mind having enough delegates to qualify even with continually changing rules, so the convention was just a coronation, a big show, with no inconvenient issues raised, for a candidate that few really wanted making it easier to get another 4 years of the candidate the "elites" really wanted.

I might vote for Trump (if I vote--it seems a bit like participating in or legitimizing one's own defrauding and/or pillaging...so probably not) if it looks like they want him out in the end in exchange for someone like Jeb Bush on the "R side"--I'm pretty sure they want Hilary overall, thinking the gender card might be useful in getting some to close their eyes to further violations of theirs and other's rights--but I can't be certain my vote will be counted the way I voted here in CA (though I'm pretty sure it will be recorded the way I voted for the use of whomever mass data collection on everyone useful).

So even though I used to vote in every election cycle faithfully like it was a duty of any and all good citizenry of which I told myself I was as I voted unwittingly for liars, thieves, killers ...I'm trying to look more critically at how I vote with daily transactions ...trying to avoid empowering the nexus of people who really want a force vaccinated human herd (that they don't think they're a part of as far as I can tell...whoever they are) among other bad things...and I'm trying (as feeble as my pathetic efforts are) to campaign for vaccine truth, health, decentralization of government, understanding and respect for local sovereignty...those kinds of things.

"I imagine him leashing an all out attack"

I meant unleashing.

I just want to know that Trump can control his temper. After hearing the last debate, I imagine him leashing an all out attack on powerful world leaders if they happen to accidentally step on his toe or foreign populations if he hears that they've insulted him. He could be and often is viscious. It does matter if he can control that and direct it to the right ie wrong, people - ONLY.
You're right that there are no alternatives in this election. None.

To Danchi.
"Politicians will say anything to get elected"
Good thing Trump is not a politician.
Trump has been the only one to clearly state his position on the vaccine autism issue and has not backed down an inch.
"I am being proven right about mass vaccinations" Donald Trump.
And you are trying to imply he will not take on corporate America? He already drew the line in the sand as far as I am concerned. I will be voting for Trump and convincing as many people as I know to do the same. Trump is not Bush that is a laughable comparison.

The survival of the human race depends on finding the true cause and cure of the autism epidemic. The rate of increase will lead to the majority of the population being unable to produce offspring and the end of the human race. Time is short and we need answers and a solution NOW!

Danchi;
I don't think your words sit well at all with me.

Because as you say them I remember that the Fathers of this country, said words like "Give me Liberty , or give me death" , or "We all hang together or we all hand separately".

I have had beloved great uncles, and a father that showed great bravery, as the charged up on bloody beaches or Normandy, or was a master scout, in mosquito infested islands of the South Pacific.

They were willing to die that their children would have a better life - well is this not just for a better life -- but darn - even to have a future life.

The science is already there and has been for many years - MANY -- it is now Political, and has been for a long time.

Political; willing to read, think about it, state your opinion, listen to another person's opinion - argue with it IF YOU CAN and together we vote . Trump has spoken about this issue, and it is the opposite of what Hillary and Sanders said.

Now you can say -- Oh, he can't, he won't the powers are to powerful - we need to discuss other more important things.

But there will be a day that is coming soon as 2030 - 15 years- that according to the the graphs that show the up where swing in autism that either someone has autism, or someone is taking care of some one that has autism.

There will be no standing armies, no police, no electricity, no running water, no grocery stores, no truck drivers to deliver goods to those stores.

And you might wish as bad as you wished to turn back the time to stop a vaccine injury - like I do all the time -- to once again to have some passion about a man that at least said "Vaccine cause autism.

Rfk Jr has endorsed Bernie Sanders. He interviewed him after the statement in September 2015. I then started hearing Bernie speak of terrible pharma corruption. Here is the thing about Trump--even George Bush said we should get the Mercury out of vaccines then turned around and vetoed a bill that would have done that. I trust the person who gets the point that govt is corrupt able and who has a line to RFK jR and is open to listening more than someone who is governed by hate and by the way has not repeated his vaccine stance for months and may have backed down from it. I trusted obama who had fought hard to stop Mercury pollution and did nothing here. I believed George bush and now realize that the odd choice of Dan Quayle may have been due to his ties with Eli Lilly. I wish I could trust Trump to do something but I have heard him say nothing else since he got blasted on this months ago. I have heard him say nothing specific. I think Bernie would listen and I had both Bernie and trump supporters sign petitions to stop sb277 here in California. I think first we need someone who realizes pharma is corrupt and is open to learning the worst. However though I am a long time progressive if it's Hilary vs trump and trump loudly again bashes mandatory vaccines and Hilary ridicules us parents and our truths again this progressive will be with you dan. I just have to tell you I voted one other time for Reagan as he said he would stop the draft and I have brothers. I held my nose and voted for a republican. He had just said what I wanted to here. I voted out carter and solar and someone who got stung by swine flu vaccine --and Reagan quickly instituted the draft registration. That is why trump better loudly resurrect his vaccine statements if he wants to beat hilary. And I haven't heard them again--are they being blocked by media?

Despite the fact that the "Donald" seemingly believes that vaccines cause Autism and are dangerous, I am of the belief that a candidate will say anything to get elected and he, Trump, has tapped into a wellspring of voters who will support him regardless of his other positions. Everyone should remember there are more issues in running the country and many people who voted for George Bush Jr did so because he was anti-abortion. Many people have long sense regretted that single issue vote. IMHO Trump will not take on corporate America. However, if elected, corporate America will take him on if he messes with their financial bottom line and their continuing progress in implementing global population control. That being said:

Politicians will say anything to get elected. That is their intrinsic nature. The reality of being president and what a president can do is far different than being a presidential candidate and saying you will do certain things if elected. I I think AOA offers more to readers by focusing on the core issues that made it powerful from the beginning. It's not going to matter who is president because there is big time money involved. You want to see a change-don't put your faith in presidential candidates. Like any other corporate-hit them where it hurts. Money.

People have very strong opinions when it come to race, religion, climate control, vaccines and politics. I come to AOA because I can find different perspectives on vaccines, what's happening in different states, what the government is and isn't doing from an insiders perspective. I come here to learn about vaccine science, personal stories of families who have autistic children and solutions and resources that have worked for them over the years etc. There are so many websites that ignore these topics completely and censor comments that are contrary to the corporate agenda which makes sites like AOA rare. Politics can be found anywhere on the net. From reading many comments since the race for the presidency began some on this site will not agree but I enjoyed coming here when I didn't have to see articles on what presidential candidates say what and who will support the cause of vaccine injured children. Yes, I do know that politicians have jumped into the mix to get corporate money to line their pockets but vaccine issues have been moved to state control levels, this is where the focus should be, not on the presidential level-state level. Ex: you have the Federal law of Informed Consent which allow any person to refuse any medical procedure they don't agree with and be completely informed of the risk and benefits of such procedure yet, you have state mandates that usurp the Federal Consent law that says otherwise and medical professionals completely ignore it. They actually refuse to see patients who question vaccine choice. The president will not be able to do anything about that, especially when there is money involved from the Federal government that pays states to vaccinate. Change the Federal law that pays states, cities, schools and doctors to vaccinate and than you will see things change. Find lawmakers who will support vaccine choice on the state level, not in Washington because they have washed their hands of this issue. As long as the old guard is in place that's never going to be a change.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

http://vaxxter.com/where-does-bernie-sanders-stand-on-vaccines/

Basically he says:

We have great pharma companies that can get these doses of flu vaccines out, and even though the FDA guy says Europe and Canada has stuff in their vaccines that have not been approved here in the United States. And Bernie says he will give him three days.

I know that a lot of parents come here, and I know some what their fears of the future, their fears of the present (are they doing all they can now), and their regrets of the past.

But when they say they are going to vote for Sanders; I think; well they don't know what he has said about vaccines. I have pointed this out on facebook to some parents that have kids that are vaccine injured and to my surprise they still keep on saying he is kind and well basically - HE DON'T MEAN WHAT HE SAYS! Nope, he says it, but he is going to take care of corruption and when he does he is going to take care of the policies that has set all this vaccine corruption in play.

I keep asking them how he can take care of the corruption at that CDC with vaccines, if he does not know it even exist!

And then they so frustrating go back to he will take care of the policies that brought on the corruption

So, I have decided that these are people that are still naive, very young, and believe also in unicorns, and fairies

My own husband, thinks Trump is a loose cannon; and him sitting in his recliner with is feet up all day long, that is when he is not having to get to the doctor for another round of antibiotics to fight off another bout of pneumonia or a sinus infection.

What is wrong with people, he acts like it is okay that he has been injured, that it is okay about his children.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, (an independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats) said, “I think obviously vaccinations work. Vaccination has worked for many, many years.” He went on to note, “I am sensitive to the fact that there are some families who disagree but the difficulty is if I have a kid who is suffering from an illness who is subjected to a kid who walks into a room without vaccines that could kill that child and that’s wrong.” source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/.../gridlocked-d-c-finds...

"... the medical profession has never taken responsibility" for treatments that caused brain damage and general paralysis of the insane (GPI). And, the medical establishment refuses to respond to logical questions from lay stakeholders. And, autism is not important enough for our representatives in congress to do anything more than throw more money at NIMH for "research" on genetic traits, fascinating aspects of echolalic speech, diminished oculomotor activity, social theory, and blah blah blah...

Fed up? Yes, I am. I am too busy with my interest in brain circuits underlying states of consciousness, repetitive movement disorder, and maturation of language areas of the cerebral cortex. Trump in the background is a refreshing rebuttal of all authority...

Dan, (I think you meant Rand Paul instead of Ron Paul)

Three weeks ago, on the Laura Ingraham show, Sen. Rand Paul doubled down on his earlier comments that vaccines should be “voluntary,” telling CNBC, “I don’t understand the point of why that would be controversial.” He also alleged he was the victim of media bias.

Yes, Donald Trump is the only candidate NOT brainwashed into believing the (fraudulent) vaccination dogma. Unfortunately Dr. Ben Carson also is among the brainwashed - but that is to be expected because he has been "indoctrinated" by his training.

Yes, you are right: There is no more important issue, nothing is even close, than stopping the Vaccine Horror inflicted on our children, and by extension the survival of civilization.