Meet the Yanomami: Magnificent Microbiome and No Autism? Part 2
Toward the Past

Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: Going In Through the Front Door

Trump Taj
By Dan Olmsted

Complete this sentence: “The importance of ending the autism epidemic pales in comparison to …”

I can think of a couple of responses – The importance of ending the autism epidemic pales in comparison to total global annihilation from an act of God -- being hit by a meteor – or man -- through thermonuclear war. I mean, who really cares if we’re totally wiped out?

After that, I can’t think of too much that pales in comparison to ending a disabling epidemic now affecting 1 in 30 boys, or whatever the exact recent calculation is. Not to mention the other disorders and disabilities linked to this environmental nightmare.

And now to my point: The importance of ending the autism epidemic would not pale in comparison to the horror of electing Donald Trump as president. Would it?

I feel pretty free to say this because, as is well known by anyone who bothers to look, I’m a progressive by background and have sought a progressive solution to the environmental roots of the autism epidemic.

But since most progressives aren’t interested in that, why are we still interested in most progressives? Specifically, why are people like us backing people like Bernie Sanders, who doesn't have a ghost of a chance of becoming president anyway?

An AOA commentator wrote this week:


In case you did not see this, here is Bernie Sanders on autism (Rachel Maddow show, 9/17/15):

"I think the evidence is overwhelming that vaccines do not cause autism. And it really is a little bit weird for Trump - who, I presume, has no medical background - to be raising this issue. And obviously it is a concern. When somebody like that says it, you're gonna find thousands of people now who are gonna hesitate to give their kids the shots, and bad things may happen."

The link is here.

Given his statements, Bernie Sanders is not educable on this subject.

paulI will be voting for Trump.


For backers of Sanders and other “non-Trump candidates” (as Mitt Romney woodenly put it this week – I miss him!), I invite them to complete one more sentence: “I’m voting for X Y, a candidate whose position is that vaccines do not cause autism and that the science is settled, because I nonetheless think we can win this battle to end the autism epidemic in the following way: …”

While Rand Paul was in the race, I think his governing philosophy and his willingness to listen to the parents of vaccine-injured kids was a reasonable road to take. Perhaps even a better one, for those who found Trump simply too odious.

But now? Is odiosity a reason to perpetuate the autism epidemic? Not to recite my resume, but I’ve covered politics in Washington for three decades. I was an editor at USA Today and the Washington editor of UPI. This place doesn’t care about you, my friends. They care about power and  money (which are by now one and the same). As my venerable former colleague Mark Benjamin used to say, “The one thing you need to understand about Congress is, Congress sucks.” I’m not getting where the path to victory starts, apart from the door to the Oval Office. So many of my good friends have worked so hard just to try to get a congressman to show up for a 15-minute briefing only to be stuck with bored interns pretending they will fill the boss in. Now that does pale in comparison!

I can recall many conversations with folks who said that what it would take to win would be for a young president to be elected, have a totally normal kid, and the world to watch him or her regress after the MMR and/or flu shots. (I’m not sure even that would do it, frankly – he’d just be labeled a kook.) We’ve all scanned family photos of newly nominated grandees and wondered if this child or that one might look autistic. We don’t wish it on them, but we are desperate for someone with some authority to understand in their bones, not just in their position papers, what’s going on.

In other words, we all realized that the path to winning is blocked off in so many ways that it would take somebody who already has power to make any difference at all. The key was having power and being willing to use it, not being a D or an R or a nice guy or gal or a jerk or a boor or someone who uses swear words.

The idea that a major party nominee would say, and get away with saying, that vaccines cause autism would have been inconceivable a year ago. Now we seem almost blasé about it. Perhaps people think Trump can't get elected or, like the rest of  ‘em, wouldn’t do anything about it once elected. Yes, perhaps. Tell me, where are better odds, because I will be happy to bet them.


Speaking of odds, I worry that we won’t win, and I mean that in the world-historical sense, which is why I’m not sure how choosy we really think we can be about the path to victory. That’s not a bleak assessment, it’s just acknowledging one of the possible outcomes, and the fact that things don’t always work out to our hearts’ desires. We don’t like that. As a college roommate used to say with a huge grin first thing in the morning while I was barely awake, “Every day in every way things are getting better and better!” 

They’re not, necessarily. I’ve heard Andy Wakefield express the same contrarian sentiment -- that whether or not this issue is resolved in our lifetime, or in fact ever, we have to consistently do the right, and skillful, things to try to bring it about. We do them, but we can’t know for sure whether they're making a dime's worth of difference.

When you get a sense of history about battles like this one – Paradigm Wars, as Mark Blaxill and I called them in our 2010 book The Age of Autism – you see how uncertain the outcome can be, and that time is not on the little guy’s side. Fairly often, the bad guys win and then they bury the corpse called Truth without an obituary or a proper funeral.

Let me briefly venture into a cautionary tale. As we wrote in our book, the evidence is very strong that when the medical establishment got hold of the syphilis epidemic when Columbus brought it back from the New World, they made a historic, five-century mess of things – and got away scot-free.

Because the early wave of syphilis in the naïve European population was especially hideous, with skin eruptions that disfigured people and often killed them, the doctors of the day attacked the bacterium with mercury salves. And because mercury is biologically “active” – it affects living things – it did subdue (kill) the surface manifestations, which seemed miraculous in the face of such suffering. Then doctors starting turning mercuric chloride (far worse than elemental mercury) into drinkable potions, and finally -- far worse than drinkable potions -- into injections of mercuric chloride.

That’s nuts, and it made many of the recipients (and providers) of this “modern treatment of syphilis” crazy as well.  We show that it actually created the worst form of syphilis, the aptly named general paralysis of the insane (GPI).

This killed far more people, and for far longer, than syphilis itself. And – here is the point – except for a few obscure nods in the direction of this cause, the medical profession has never taken responsibility. I have a cousin who is a doctor and who read our chapter on syphilis with astonishment – it made perfect sense, but he had always been taught that GPI was just a tragic outcome of long-term syphilis infection. 

Yet doctors knew, suspected, or should have known all along that they were causing this catastrophe, not preventing it. A few did. After our book came out, Teresa Conrick spotted an amazing article by a Danish doctor titled, “Is General Paresis [GPI] Dependent Upon Previous Treatment With Mercury?”

Check it out. Patients had been getting 400 treatments with mercury ointment, not to mention the injections. When that stopped, GPI fell off the cliff.

The title could really be something like, “Did we just kill millions of people over 500 years in the worst mass poisoning in history while trying to treat a disease that wasn’t even fatal?” The honest, open recognition of the enormity of what had gone on might have led to an understanding of mercury’s dangers in humans before the whole Pink Disease debacle (from teething powders and diaper ointments) killed babies in the 20th century. Not to mention the whole autism thing (or Freud’s mercury-poisoned “hysteria” cases.)

Nobody paid a price, even the price of acknowledging the truth.


And so I say ending the autism epidemic is no certain thing, as much as we like to encourage each other and appeal to the better angels of our collective nature.

Message: We’d better take our chances when we get ‘em. Don’t count on the perps walking in handcuffs or holding a press conference to acknowledge their grievous errors. Do we really want to settle for a piece in The Journal of Obscure Disorders in 100 years that says “early vaccine compounds now appear to have used toxic ingredients and formulations that triggered brain damage that was then called ‘autism.’ Fortunately, the march of medical progress has since led to much safer vaccines.”

 No, we want a reckoning, restitution and justice -- now or as soon as humanly possible.

Right now we have a presumptive major party candidate who says too many vaccines, too soon are destroying the minds of our kids. People should make whatever judgments they want, but I'd like to know they've reckoned with the truth that the importance of ending the autism epidemic doesn't pale in comparison with very much at all.


Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.


Dan Burns

Dan Olmsted, you asked, “The importance of ending the autism epidemic pales in comparison to …” My answer is, "not much that I can think of after two weeks of trying." But Trump's campaign is not about autism, a trial balloon that didn't float. It is about fear. Try asking, "The URGENCY of ending the autism epidemic pales in comparison to..." My answer is, "The forced deportation of 11 million undocumented workers and their children." My partner teaches English to their bright, eager four-year-olds at a charter school in south Dallas. My Rotary Club sends their teenagers to community college. I judge their high school speech contests, where they talk about their responsibilities to their families and their goals for the future. And they tell me their fears: that if a certain megalomaniac wins the general election, the next knock on their door could be the police coming to tear their family apart. That's a fear that trumps autism and related vaccine injuries for 11 million of our neighbors. And support for the fear monger is a delusion and a shame.


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?

Birgit Calhoun

Just found an older article about Bush and big money involvement regarding Thimerosal:

Michelle B

Agree with Barry!

i'm with Trump!


I heard Trump a number of years ago state that he and his wife chose an alternate vaccine schedule for their son. While I am not sure if Trump can effectively change the vaccine schedule, I think that he will support vaccine choice. At some point in the near future there will be another measles outbreak or Zika outbreak or some other outbreak we never heard of and the Federal government will step in with mandates. Without Trump, in the forseeable future, none of us will have the ability to say no to vaccines.

This issue is the most important issue.

Tracy Ligtenberg

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.


I'm voting for Trump because for me this is a one issue election. Well, I'm anti-war and Hillary looks like she might get us into a war with Russia. You see she owes George Soros and he wants war with Russia.. She owes Hiam Saban and Saban wants war with Iran. She gets money from big pharma. She does what she is told to do. We're doomed with a Hillary candidacy. Trump is a big mouth and makes me nervous but he knows vaccines cause autism...enough said.

In terms of the never never land of this vaccine nightmare ever ending any time in our lifetimes. Well, I am more optimistic. I went to a workshop over the week-end and it was full of two types of people--start up entrepreneurial types and people trying to cash in on the "health crisis" Yes, there is a health crisis out there and it's going to be a big business cleaning up the mess. I don't know when the whole thing will crash down but sooner than the end of my life, sooner than five years from now, maybe two or three. Maybe 2019...who knows. I think we're reaching the tipping point.

Jeannette Bishop

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

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.

Angus Files

Sorry got distracted wrote it down wrong ..

Going by my quick look over the comments by different names

For Trump 16 ( including my vote)
Against 9
Dunno`s 3

The for Trumps have AOA...



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.

Angus Files

Going by my quick look over the comments by different names

For Trump 32 ( including my vote)
Against 9
Dunno`s 3

The for Trumps have AOA...



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.


Whether anyone votes for Sanders or Trump, I doubt anybody is going to hear anything else about the vaccine issue before the final election. From a strategy standpoint for STAYING in the race until then, it's a no brainer for ANY candidate. Just because Sanders isn't taking corporate donations, doesn't mean he isn't ignorant of the fact that corporations can still influence the opinion of the public surrounding him. He has to take that into account, any strategist that doesn't help him on that front isn't worth his salt.

So personally, I'm holding my final decision back until right before the election, which will be the only time that the remaining candidates will have to go out on a limb and try to gather the votes they want. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a good strategy for autism families and their respective organizations to hold back on publicly endorsing either candidate until the candidates make more specific public comments and show us that they have done their homework and understand that THE major underlying issue in the huge and continuing increase in autism is heavy metal poisoning in all its forms (which will be pushing the envelope but in the right direction without specifically mentioning the presence of heavy metals in vaccines) and that the major major political constituency that are the autism families will vote for the candidate that acknowledges that. But that kind of public announcement cannot happen at this point in the election process. If it happens, it will happen close to the election, very close, and it would likely occur not in major media but in social media. At that point, it would be in the autism advocates' best interest to unite publicly behind one candidate to show both solidarity and convey the single most important goal, showing in no uncertain terms that forced exposure to toxins in any form, including vaccines, is a form of enslavement, and it is the publics' line in the sand.

If it doesn't happen at all, then this discussion, and an even closer examination of the words vs actions vs educability will become more relevant. I absolutely expect ANY candidate to be capable of changing their opinion based on incoming/new information. So the question would become, which candidate has shown by past actions that they can reverse or go back on their own previously bad/uniformed decisions in order to make better ones. Laws are decisions made to try and solve problems, but there almost always more than one way to solve a problem - when one solution doesn't work, it is time to try another. Which means laws should be changed when they, as an attempt at providing a solution, fail to accomplish the goal. That would be a great question to ask an incumbent candidate in a debate: What law or laws that you helped put in effect have now been shown to have failed in their goal or had unforeseen negative consequences (after much post-law research has shown)? Have you actively tried to correct the results by either rescinding the law or amending it to move closer to the original goal and correct the negative results?

Or, if you had to ask it of a new candidate: What law or laws made in the last century do you think need to be updated due to recent research showing the law(s)' negative effects outweighing the original intent of the law(s)?

If in the end neither candidate steps up to the plate, don't play their game. This 2 party system is meant to benefit only 2 demographics: super rich & therefore powerful people, and the corporations that make them superrich and powerful. Everyone should agree on a write-in candidate. A single name could garner enough numbers to capture serious attention and force some cooperation. Not sure who I would vote for on that, but 3 come to mind immediately. All the autism/vaccine safety/health freedom/environmental/parental rights/food rights organizations should be holding their own de-facto elections over the next few months and try to come to an agreement. They should step in and do this, because the original idea of what appeared capable of becoming an environmental-health-based-rights political party inclusive of vaccine induced autism seems to have been abandoned before it barely got out of the starting gate - such a shame, because they would have had 5 years under their belt by now of growing it and grooming it and may have had a nice presence at the state level by now, if one even believes political change happens from the inside.

New article: "Benefits Associated with the Reduction of Mercury Emissions Far Outweigh Industry Cost"

Birgit Calhoun

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.


Regardless of what anyone thinks about the presidential candidates, please vote! If we become too cynical to vote, we lose power. Each vote is minuscule, but a large group of votes becomes significant. And it's not only about the presidential election but local and state offices and laws.

I don't see that any of the major candidates is strong on vaccine issues. Like Aimee said, Trump has only given us sound bites. So I will need to make my decision based on other issues. But I will keep writing to the candidates. If you make a donation, sometimes you are asked to state your opinions. Whether anyone actually reads these statements, and whether the candidate is even made aware of them, who knows? But all we can do is keep voicing our stories and opinions in many venues. We can't give up, even if our words are like drops of water on stone, even if each person's vote is a like drop of water in a river.

And I don't believe that the results of elections are pre-ordained.

Go Trump

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

Ronald Kostoff


Washington, DC had a problem with excessive lead in drinking water about a decade ago, similar to what Flint is experiencing today. Congressional oversight hearings were held. The conclusion, in part, was:

"Congresswoman Norton sat with a House Science and Technology subcommittee during a hearing on its investigative report issued today that accused the CDC of making inaccurate and indefensible claims in a 2004 report concerning lead in the city's drinking water. Following the hearing, Norton said, "The CDC has participated in nothing short of a cover up that may have harmed families, especially children, in ways that could be difficult to redress." The subcommittee's investigation found that the number of children in the District of Columbia who had elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) in 2002 and 2003 was more than three times higher than the CDC reported. The subcommittee also found that that the laboratories that conducted these blood tests determined that at least 949 D.C. children had elevated blood lead levels in 2002 and 2003, although the CDC reported that only 315 D.C. children suffered from elevated blood lead levels at that time."

This may be the tip of the iceberg! There may be larger concerns that the present excessive lead crisis in Flint is masking. There are many potentially toxic substances that enter our water supply. We assume that 1) these substances have been identified, that 2) 'safe' levels have been established, and that 3) our water treatment facilities remove these potentially toxic substances. How do we know any of these three critical steps have been/are being followed?

I posted a brief mention to Dr. William Marcus in AoA, a while back. He was a toxicologist and Senior Science Advisor at EPA. He reported potential cover-up of cancers (by National Toxicology Program) resulting from fluoride ingestion, and was fired in 1992. He challenged this decision in court, and was re-instated. Unfortunately, the literature remains infested with 'manufactured' research on the safety of fluoride. The EPA maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) limit of 4 milligrams per liter for fluoride remains in effect, even though the Public Health Service recommends 1/6 that concentration as a limit.

Why would we think fluoridation would be a unique case? How many other potentially toxic substances have not been identified, or more accurately, have not been placed in the public domain? Of those that have been identified, like fluorides, how many have approved EPA safety levels that are well above concentrations known to cause serious diseases? Finally, how well are excessive levels of toxic substances measured and reported to the public? It wasn't done in Flint for lead initially; why would anyone believe this is an isolated example?

The present Flint narrative is that when the lead in the water has been brought back to 'acceptable' levels, the water will be OK again. I'm concerned that this may not be the case, and what Marcus found for fluoride could be applicable for many substances. If I ever find the time, I may look into that.

Ronald Kostoff


"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.


Great idea. But I think there are better articles to hand out. That one only covers one small aspect. I particularly don't care for this part imposing the idea of substituting another medication:

"Clinical studies of an antiviral cream containing Ranpirnase have shown promise in directly targeting HPV. Condom manufacturers and personal lubricant products should consider adding Ranpirnase to their products if/when the FDA approves of its use."

Patience (Eileen Nicole) Simon

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???


Here is an idea: I think it is worth a try.

Hire your kid for $10/hir to stand in front of your very favorite pediatrician's office and hand out this brochure:

If, as and when they get harassed or intimidated, have your camera ready.

If 100 readers of this forum spend 1 hour a week giving out this brochure to every family going into a pediatricians office, it would dent sales of the drug. Then the brochure becomes the story that people are reading about.

"Teen arrested for handing out brochure" makes great copy.

Hand it out at your school board. E-mail it to every member.

Make sure your state and local rep get e-mail copies.

Forget the national fulks, I mean folks, something like that. They clearly do not care. Forget about'em and move on. All politics is local, anyway.

Local school boards in particular are a great place to get change done. I have seen it with flu mist, and now I have seen my state be forced by citizen outrage to withdraw from committee proposed vaccine mandates. The HPV vaccine is toxic to the vaccine industry, a gold plated bomb, a sales proof drug that no one wants. Wrap it around their friggin' necks. It is a gift to any one who hates current vaccine policy.

Spending time proactively picketing your pediatrician's office in a non violent and legal manner is something that hasn't been tried. Getting arrested for it cannot have a downside for your teenager, who will be getting fresh air, exercise, and making new friends.

If you see it on TV someday soon, it may be my family. I hope someone is standing with me, or beats me to it.

Educate your community and they will back off flu shots in schools and HPV. DTP is a very vulnerable vaccine that is next on my personal list.


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

Birgit Calhoun

I am glad you are riling up. It's sometimes necessary. That's basically what Trump is doing to get attention.

I am still hoping that his tack on autism is being taken up by someone other than him. I believe that getting doctors and the population in general to see the mercury and the vaccine situation, meaning pharmaceutical companies and the media, my way is even more important than convincing the government and elected officials.

The government is kind of like an elephant that can only grasp things with its trunk. The government has a problem right now with healthcare, with corrupt corporations and with the legal system. It's not that government is too big. Rather, it needs to simplify, and it has no clue how.

I don't mean that government is too big. I am saying it's inefficient and that leads to it being ineffective. It needs to look at the individual and still see the overall picture.

It does not control the media. It does not control how laws are made and used, and it is lost in its ability to govern effectively.

We need more civil service. We need better education, and we need above all honesty. Just having a large trunk and big teeth will not do.

It needs to make sure science is not beholden to any money tree. It needs to realize how toxic the environment is. It needs to get wise to its people and certainly to vaccines and mercury.

Ronald Kostoff


" 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!


Linda1 I agree that it's ridiculous how just a few states vote first in the primaries, and every time we get results from one small state people act like this is representative of everyone. The states vote very differently in both primaries and general election, so one state is not a harbinger predicting overall results.

Aimee Doyle

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.


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.

Doug Troutman

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


Dr. Kostoff,
Yeah, well, African American South Carolinians shouldn't be deciding for African Americans in other states either. That's just wrong. It may only mean that Clinton campaigned effectively in SC. It could also mean that more African Americans stayed home out of disgust for the choices than voted. It could also mean that South Carolinians are the easiest voters to sway. South Carolina does not have the most highly educated populace - far from it. Either way, it doesn't matter. EVERYONE should get to choose the choices, not just one or two or three states that are ALWAYS first in line. And New Hampshire is a sparsely populated state. The whole thing is a rigged scam.

Ronald Kostoff


"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.


I have to say one more thing...

To Bernie Sanders and anyone else who thinks that people have a social responsibility to vaccinate themselves and their children in order to save the lives of others - Do you also believe that people should be compelled by law or social responsibility to donate their organs while they are still alive and well? Because physically and ethically it's the same thing. You are asking someone to risk losing their own life and health in order to save someone else. The only difference being that with organ donation, a life is being saved.


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.


Democrat no more:

A pitbull bully sounds good to me too.


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.


I think all the candidates and the media have been warned that to engage in vaccine talk is to threaten national security. I further believe that warning has come with a gag order that they are not allowed to tell a soul about the warning or the gag order.

According to the Dept of Defense, vaccines protect the populace from disease, therefore disaster, and vaccines are a military defense against terrorism. That's what I think is going on - why there is no vaccine talk outside of the safe and effective, savior of mankind script.

I also think that the line up of potential candidates is pathetic. Outside of Trump, Clinton, Carson and Sanders, the others are what I would expect to see running to head a local school board. Sanders, I believe, is qualified. He has spent his entire long career fighting corporate interests, except it seems that the vaccine industry is not a corporate interest to him. Go figure. Why anyone would want Clinton defies explanation. Carson is a smart man but just because he's a good surgeon doesn't mean he'd be a good president. As an MD, he focused on one case at a time. The presidency requires completely different skills. But it doesn't matter because Carson has a timid voice and manner. Few will vote for him. Trump - the candidate who acts just like a gangster. What a sorry line-up. That, reflects the condition of this country.

Denise Anderstrom Douglass

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


And Danchi; Policy change was needed in the Mid East, and we should have been told that in the very beginning; and not after we had gone in -- which President Bush did say so.

Still this s bunch of weapons of mass destruction stuff, well No one likes to be lied to.

What would Al Gore have done?

I have even less confidence in Al Gore, now after watching him the last plus decade that he would have handled it well at all.


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.

Democrat no more

Haven't we all been hoping for someone in power to take a stand on our cause? A billionaire bulldog who has the bully pulpit and we cower in fear, lest our hearts be broken once again or stand with indignation at his crude persona. Could it be that this seventy year old businessman who has lived a lifetime filled with worldly pleasure, has had a revelation? Age has a tendency to lead us all to more profound questions and quest. I for one will put my sensitivities aside, roll the dice and place my bet on Trump. IMO, the only other choice is to sit back and as Bob so succinctly ends many of his comments, wait.... as The Band Plays On and On and On........

Ronald Kostoff


"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 ( Single dose appears to have been used until ~1989 (; (, 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 ( 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 ( A number of researchers have provided plausible mechanisms, one of the more compelling recent ones being Dr. Martin Pall ( He also believes there could be synergy between EMFs and toxic chemical stimuli. A recent interesting article ( 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.


I don't expect my words to sit well with most people on this site but we are all entitled to our own perspective and from what I have seen over the decades, what this country was founded on is a far cry from what is going on now. Politicians will say anything to get elected. We think we have power or some input into what goes on in the country but we don't. We are given the illusion that we have some sway with what goes on by voting for certain people but we don't. It's an illusion and it's something that is extremely difficult for people to comprehend. Just like True Believer Vaccine Supporters who don't believe vaccine causes injuries and have truly eradicated diseases around the world-many people have that same "belief" that by electing certain people they can have the kind of country they want and the people they elected would do the bidding of the people who elected them, not the bidding of the corporations that paid for them to get elected.

There are many contemporary examples of Washington doing the bidding of corporate American and not looking out for the best interest of the people. Bush being given the Presidency by the SCOTUS. As admitted by former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connell, she was bullied into voting to stop the Florida vote in 2000 (a decisions she openly regrets) and after Bush was elevated to the White House Scalia wrote that the SCOTUS decision could not be used as precedent in any other presidential election. Why, because he knew the decision was not upholding the Constitution (many interpretations of this statement by the way). Since it was determined that Gore won the popular vote that means the majority of the people in the US wanted the count to continue but bush had his henchmen in place to stop this. The War in Iraq, the citizens of the US were not supportive of the bush cable's invasion of Iraq yet there was an agenda in place and the people who had the evidence that Iraq did not have WMD's, lives and careers were destroyed, Joe Wilson & Valerie Plam for example. This should sound familiar-Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Torture was an acceptable form of information gathering and the lawyers who wrote the reports saying it was OK, have never been brought to justice. The implementation of the Patriot Act, which, save a few, US Senator and Congresspersons didn't read, signed without question despite citizens vocal objections to it. Homeland security was created at this time and it was under the umbrella of Homeland Security BRUESEWITZ ET AL.v.WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC.,. was slipped into another bill in the wee hours of the morning: The Man Behind The Vaccine Mystery-http://www.cbsnews(dot)com/news/the-man-behind-the-vaccine-mystery/. Dick Army said he was very happy to do it and the SCOTUS wouldn't touch it making the statement vaccine are unavoidabley unsafe. Was Washington looking out for the American People? No! BRUESEWITZ ET AL.v.WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC was the name of the court case not the bill.

One primary reason the President, Senate and Congress will not reverse, take on, change or remove anything a previous administration has put in place---PAYBACK.
If the Democratic's make a move to arrested say some of the people involved in the War in Iraq, mostly Republicans who have been charged with War Crimes: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia-http://www.bushtothehague(dot)org/2012/05/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/, The Republicans will retaliate in some way against the Democratic's. Democratic aides have actually made statements about this.

A President, Democratic or Republican has limited power in the real world. Just look at the last 7 years of President Obama's presidency. A decision was made on inauguration day to NOT work for this president and to allow the country to fail (many youtube videos on McConnell's statement) Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives' by by Robert Draper.

The Pharmaceutical lobby is said to have taken first place from the Oil industry in Washington with the number of people on Capitol Hill. Trump or any other person who is elected can say anything they want during a campaign but he must, as head of his or her party ensure all the duck are in a row to elect members of their party in any upcoming election. Those who are currently in office and those who are running for office who receive money from big pharma will do their bidding to keep money flowing in. Any President will be pressured to help elect party members and if they need pharma money, he/she will not mess with that. You, I, children in this country and around the world don't matter. Look at the number of elected officials in California who I'm sure told the people of the state they were working for them however-the Merck financial statements say otherwise: Does Big Pharma Own America? http://www.themomstreetjournal(dot)com/does-big-pharma-own-america/

This is on a state level. Can you imagine the level of corruption on the federal level?

The Founding Fathers have been rolling in their graves, going deeper and deeper into the earth for so long they are probably more than half way to China.

Bob Moffit

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.


It's not about how a person treats people they like.


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.

Dan Olmsted

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.

each person has to weigh this against their political and moral values and decide where they land. i've sort of felt there hasn't been a lot of public "weighing" going on -- not as much as i'd expect, anyway -- given the uniqueness of the situation. so i try to rile things up and get people talking, which is kind of my job description anyway.

david m burd


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.


Trump has been the only one to clearly state his position on the vaccine autism issue and has not backed down an inch.

Exactly, that proves my point.
President Obama stated he would look into the vaccine issues and has not officially backed down from that position.

How long have you been following elections in the US? Campaign statements and promises have nothing to do with what a president can do. It doesn't matter what they say-you know why?
NACCHO. Because the CDC,WHO and the others involved in the push for mandatory vaccines know that there is a certain amount of Federal Protection families can utilize when they are being bullied by schools, doctors, etc- NACCHO was launched to chip away at parental autonomy at the STATE level and the Federal government is reluctant to interfere with State rights. The CDC knew exactly what they were doing when they created this front group.

david m burd

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.

Lisa Thompson

Bernie Sanders is absolutely educable about vaccines and autism. The "follow the money" narrative is exactly in his ideological wheelhouse. Unfortunately he has drunk the Koolaid of the sanctimonious "the science is in crowd." However, if the right people put the right information in front of him, he would easily connect the dots. RFK Jr. should give him a copy of Trace Mounts and a link to Age of Autism!


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.
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"

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"
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.


What John said is so true: "One conclusion is that being "in power" is not actually being "in power", it is a balancing act in which you constantly have to appease multiple interests - that, of course, is not Trump talk. So far, everyone in public life has had to buckle down to the deceit as a condition of remaining in it: this includes, of course, celebrities who often don't read the cues as quickly as politicians. But in the end they subside into silence." How sad.


“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.



Oh, yes Linda - learn from me that even when you kids grow up they still come after them with vaccines.

I have thought about Rfk Jr and his endorsement of Bernie Sanders a lot. I have looked up articles and read as much as I can find.

Sure Kennedy Jr. came out on the right side of vaccines, and he was brave and clever and determined. I am very grateful for his help.

So, why has Kennedy Jr endorsed Sanders? Every thing I read has lead me to believe that it has nothing to do with vaccines.

There are lines that every human being will not cross. I have a lot of lines I won't cross- but for Kennedy Jr it is fore most the Democrat party line. His family comes from a long, long glorious line of Democrats. He could no more cross the party line than a born again Christian to turn Muslim. Easier probably..

RFK JR. then has two choices; Sanders or Hillary.

Plus RFK JR. Is after being a Democrat an Environmentalist. Rfk Jr is an environmentalist and a Democrat.
He is all over President Obama, lol being in bed with the coal companies, President Obama has devastated what was left of the economy of the Appalachians.

I pay 30 to 70 dollars environmental surcharge, on top of my very high electric bill every month.

That money does not go toward research to get carbon dioxide out of smoke of coal -- that was stopped in 2011. That research facility now sits rusting to the ground in West Virginia.

Meanwhile; such a plant is being successful in Manitoba, Canada, just in the last couple of years.

So, where is my money going - like I don't need it with two grown children injured and all? Heck, I would like to send a bit toward Age of Autism and NVIC. But I don't have it to give.

According to my friends up north their electric bills are cheaper - they think because of the windmills that the government has put on government lands that use to be rented to farmers to help keep abundant, cheaper food on the American plate. Really it is probably my money money taken from me and given to them, to subsidize windmills which makes their electric bills cheaper; for now.

So, it is not that Kennedy has Sander's ear, nor is Sanders doing a wink, wink, cross my fingers as I lie out right to every one because I really, really don't believe what I am telling you. --- And what I am telling you is -- your unvaccinated kid is slobbering all over my sick kid, and that is not right. Wink, wink I really don't mean it.

No way. No how.


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.

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 …

….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.

Sean Burke

Trump believes vaccine cause autism. Trump has been ridiculed for this. Trump takes this personally. The executive branch controls the public health apparatus. On a resent interview with Roger Stone on the Alex Jones show, Alex kept bring up forced inoculations and is convinced Trump gets it. Trump is the best and only hope. I hope people see this because someone who sticks his head out on this needs to be supported.

Holly Riley

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.


Thanks Dan for a sobering commentary. The victors do of course write the history books.

I would remind everyone that the most medically qualified candidate to comment on issues of pediatric neuro disorders is Dr. Ben Carson. 27 honorary degrees, and at age 34 director of pediatric neuro surgery at Johns Hopkins.

Dr. Carson pulled no punches. To 22.5mm Americans, he said many pediatricians believe we give too many vaccines, at too young an age, too close together.

The media/industrial complex somehow justifies a label of "anti vaxxer" and "not medically qualified" on Dr. Carson.

If my kid was sick, I would trust Dr. Carson to tell me the truth. The media wants to bury his comments about vaccines- and they are succeeding.


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?


One in thirty boys in this country with autism, more with other levels of vaccine injury,including asthma,diabetes, peanut allergies and more. How can they all keep this out of the conversation, why won't the people speak up for children and the most pressing issue of our time,the autism epidemic and the inflated vaccine schedule. It's vaccine injury folks! I'm voting for the one that finally says that.

go Trump

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.


"… He is an egotistical blowhard who seems to have little, if any, respect for other people, other countries, or the environment. He is not a thoughtful person. He is not a considerate person. He is not a temperate person. He also comes off as a male chauvinist pig... "


After about 9 seconds on google, I found the following link:

Which described how Donald Trump rewarded one good samaritan by first buying his wife a bouquet of flowers, and then paying off the couples mortgage.

And it describes how Donald donated 100K of his own money , to keep the doors of a christian ministry open.

And it describes how when Donald Trump learned that the organizer of the Harlem Hoops inner city basketball tournament was killed in the 9/11 attacks, he tracked down family, and donated the money required to keep that tournament going.

I realize this is just one article, and heck I'm not even American. But it's enough to convince me that you don't seem to know much about him at all.

Carolyn M

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.

Carolyn M

The statements that Bernie Sanders has made are concerning vaccines are consistent. These statements are too strong and too recent for him to "walk back" anytime soon.

The idea expressed by some commenters here that Bernie Sanders is educable on this subject rests on two assumptions: 1. That someone could meet with Sanders and convince him that he is wrong about vaccine injury and 2. That this meeting could occur in the near future. This is a highly unlikely scenario.

This epiphany would need to take place very soon: per the NVIC website, there are currently 3 childhood vaccine mandate bills - and at least one adult vaccine mandate bill - in the U. S. Congress. The childhood vaccine mandate bills are not currently moving, but that could change. As it now stands, Trump is the only candidate for President of the United States who is at all likely to veto these bills, if they were to pass. Sanders, Clinton, and the rest would all happily sign them.

No, Bernie Sanders is not educable on this subject.


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.

No way. No how.

Never in a million years would I vote for Trump. I always thought that Jenny McCarthy was allowed to speak out on vaccines on Oprah at least partly because the powers that be thought she would make a good target for belittling--and any others who shared her opinion. Trump certainly serves the same purpose well.

He is an egotistical blowhard who seems to have little, if any, respect for other people, other countries, or the environment. He is not a thoughtful person. He is not a considerate person. He is not a temperate person. He also comes off as a male chauvinist pig.

As for concerns equal to the autism disaster, well, how about the rapid and increasing disappearance of bees and other pollinators? How about the non-stop growing build-up of CO2 in our atmosphere--and our oceans with resulting acidification that is likely to lead to catastrophic extinctions of many kinds of marine life?

Trump is a Republican who puts business interests above all other concerns. When asked in an interview about his plan to abolish the EPA and wasn't there a need to protect the environment, his reply was: “We'll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.”

Does anyone actually think that he is going to side with the little guy over BIG BUSINESS on anything? He is big business and he thinks he and his businesses (and other multi-millionaire businessmen like him) are smarter and more important, and more deserving, than anyone or anything else.

Vote for Trump? No way. No how.

And who is it that thinks Bernie can't win? And just why not? That would be the biggest slap in the face to all the PTB--especially big pharma and Monsanto who are putting a lot of their marbles into Hillary.

IMO despite what he may have said about vaccines, he is still likely educable on any subject. Many here have stated that they once thought the same as he apparently currently thinks--but changed their minds due to personal experiences, observations, reading, and thinking. If nothing else, Sanders seems capable of thinking and caring.

I'd bet far more on Bernie being able to learn than on the "donald" ever doing something that would hinder big business from getting its way on anything. You want to be a serf? No doubt the Donald has, or will have, a job for you! Just don't expect him to be a considerate, understanding, or even courteous boss. IMO, if elected Trump would most likely aim to get things done in just about the same way that governor in Michigan did--by trumping the power of elected officials everywhere with "appointed" czars, managers, etc. And we all know now exactly where that led.

Tony Bateson

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


Trump is scary! He is a real estate agent. He is not a politician and neither are the other ones. I'm not impressed with anyone. My son is autistic and that is my main concern not these "idiot so called politicians". They are all talk and never do anything or follow up what they promised. My son is never going to appreciate certain things in life because it does not make sense to him. He would never think of responding to an article to voice his opinion. I'm mad that there has not been any growth as to finding out why this occurs in our children with a diagnosis of Autism. My son is high functioning and I am happy for that but what about when I am gone from this world? will society accept him or shun him. I already am getting my daughter to just accept in watching over or taking care of her brother because I am afraid what society may do. Politicians do not care especially republican ones. Trump may say to build " a wall" around him to keep him out of our reach. I don't care about who is running for office because who ever is in! I will always be the one paying the price " or taxes" of their change in something because that is what the highest bidder wanted if they wanted that politician in office. This never works out for the "everyday" person! only the ones with power or money. I'm college educated and a professional yet my opinion means nothing to any of them. So I am just excepting the fact that some "idiot" will be in office and again! I will be paying the price while taking care of my family the best way I know how.


I forgot:




Here's the scenario. Or at least one of several possibilities judging from what we have seen many times.
Trump gets wind of the fact that XXX leader insulted him (or Trump perceives an insult). Trump immediately responds like this:

'XXXX is a FOOL. He/She is a COMPLETE DISASTER. NO ONE respects XXXX. NO ONE listens to XXXX. XXXX can't even tie his/her own shoes. XXXX needs to be told what to do. XXXX did ......and ...... and even his/her own PEOPLE know that and can't WAIT to get rid of XXXX. A COMPLETE DISASTER. EVERYONE knows it. EVERYONE.

Jeannette Bishop

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 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.


Linda 1
Is it always important to hold your temper?
I mean even Jesus had his breaking point.

If you are passionate about things, there should be a bit of anger right now. Besides he is a Scot - they have tempers -they speak what they believe, get it out in the open, and and then contemplate further actions.


"I imagine him leashing an all out attack"

I meant unleashing.



You have taught me a lot though your comments, most recently about Sanders. While you are right about Sanders, please don't be too frustrated with your dear husband. Trump IS a loose cannon. But he's the only cannon among the potential candidates. The question is - is it better to have a loose cannon or none at all?

However, I am intrigued by the fact that RFK Jr has chosen to support Sanders. I imagine that RFK Jr knows something about Sanders' position that we don't know, that Sanders feels he can't say.

As much as I believe in social responsibility - that a civil and just society takes care of the sick and extends an arm to the poor - that no one should be bankrupted by illness or education - and that the influence of the wealthy should not overshadow everyone else - social responsibility stops at the sanctity of one's own body. No one should ever be drugged to fulfill a social responsibility. Interesting that Bernie the socialist isn't even in office and that's what the Democrats and Republicans are pushing now. They're carrying out this socialist agenda all by themselves without any help from Bernie.


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.

Jonathan Rose

Dan, you're absolutely right about Trump. He has a truckload of faults, but he's the only hope we've got. (And actually, in the last debate, I found his take on other issues -- such as the Middle East and health insurance -- quite impressive.) You'll notice that pundits have been recently saying that vaccines mustn't become an issue in this campaign, which shows that they're absolutely terrified that Trump will make it an issue. Even if he doesn't win the presidency, he can expose what's going on from the campaign stump, and then Middle America will write their congressmen and demand to know what the hell is going on. The Dark Side can't win that kind of open debate, and they know it.

Sanders has many good qualities, but he also manifests the dismal side of socialism, the Nanny State: We can force you to take your medicine, because it serves the "common good".

John, I'm afraid you're right: as far as prominent politicians are concerned, their own kids are just props. With rare exceptions (like Dan Burton), they'll always choose their campaign donors over their grandchildren.

And finally, Dan, speaking as a historian, I fear you may be right about history. I hope you're not.


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.

Washington You're Fired!

A pundit likened to Trump Chemo for Washington. He'll kill everything good and bad in government and that's what it's going to take to end the cancer that the dangerously disfunctional US govt has become.


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!


UP Ward Swing in autism. I need to slow down, let the blood quit thumping ---and proof read a bit.
But I don't and I beg all of you here to forgive me.


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.


typo? what is the paul in there?

"Given his statements, Bernie Sanders is not educable on this subject.

paulI will be voting for Trump."

Oh dan you may be right but ..

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?

Mercky Business

If you say you are anti-corruption and you mislead people perhaps you are really pro-corruption? Politicians have made a corrupt deal with industry through public bodies. The public bodies don't tell them anything don't wasnt to hear. Sanders and Clinton can announce the science is in, because they are lazy, incompetent, cowardly and fundamentally dishonest. The truth is that they don't want to know.


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


The Mad Farmer Liberation Front

Are you saying that Bernie is saying one thing and planning on doing some thing else -- the right thing and tricking the evil corporate powers that rule the CDC,NIH, HHS?

And you think this because he seems so kind and grandfatherly?

Oh, like President Obama meant something else when he said vaccines will be researched, but they are important and all that. Yeah, I see very clearly.


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.


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:

He is sensitive!

Well he is more sensitive than -------------- Hillary LOL1

Grass is green, sky is blue, vaccines are safe get your vaccines, and grand ma knows best.

Is he more sensitive -- really -- really?


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:

From The Mad Farmer Liberation Front - Wendell Berry

Advice from Wendell Berry

"Invest in the millenium. Plant sequoias.
Say that your main crop is the forest
that you did not plant,
that you will not live to harvest.

"As soon as the generals and the politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn't go."

Patience (Eileen Nicole) Simon

"... 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...

Bob Moffit

"Fairly often, the bad guys win and then they bury the corpse called Truth without an obituary or a proper funeral."

The strategy of "burying the corpse" has proven successful over centuries .. it is a strategy better defined as:

"Delay, Deny and hope they die"

Think Thalidomide, Agent Orange, Blood-letting .. on and on.

As for the ongoing primaries .. SOMEONE has to be asked to take a "public" position .. for or against .. the stated "goals" of the National Adult Vaccination Plan .. which views the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as an "opportunity" to impose (coercive) requirements that adults "comply" with recommended schedule for adults by the year 2020.

Such as .. refused the Shingles (flu, Hep A, etc) vaccine in your senior years .. no ACA coverage if you do get shingles (flu, Hep A, etc).

Simple yes or no to this question will do ..

Who makes the decision determining what vaccines adults receive .. public health officials and elected representatives .. or .. adults themselves?

Unfortunately .. the MEDIA will never ask that question .. so PLEASE ... SOMEONE .. ask these candidates THAT question when YOU are in position to ask it during this primary season .. because .. it will be too late to ask once they have been elected and no longer need your vote.

david m burd

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.

John Stone

"I can recall many conversations with folks who said that what it would take to win would be for a young president to be elected, have a totally normal kid, and the world to watch him or her regress after the MMR and/or flu shots. (I’m not sure even that would do it, frankly – he’d just be labeled a kook.) We’ve all scanned family photos of newly nominated grandees and wondered if this child or that one might look autistic. We don’t wish it on them, but we are desperate for someone with some authority to understand in their bones, not just in their position papers, what’s going on."

I think we've already seen often enough that that in itself does not make any difference. In fact, three out of the last four British Prime Ministers had affected families - Major, Blair and Cameron. None were interested in tussling with medical orthodoxy - they just carried on schmoozing:

Cameron: Sam Cam's step sister
Blair: relative of Cherie (this article does not have correct date on it but is from December 2001)
Major: grandson

One conclusion is that being "in power" is not actually being "in power", it is a balancing act in which you constantly have to appease multiple interests - that, of course, is not Trump talk. So far, everyone in public life has had to buckle down to the deceit as a condition of remaining in it: this includes, of course, celebrities who often don't read the cues as quickly as politicians. But in the end they subside into silence.

I hope Trump can deliver something. I agree there is no other single issue now which is as important as this one.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)