Bayareamon,

" the E.P.A. has issued regulations restricting the use of only five industrial chemicals out of more than eighty thousand in the environment "

Here's a list of drinking water contaminants (http://www.epa.gov/your-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants). There are three questions that need to be asked, and answered: 1) which contaminants are missing, and why; 2) are the EPA recommended limits supported by science, or are they far higher than what causes disease like the FCC limits on non-ionizing radiation; 3) where limits exist, how frequently are the contaminants measured, and how accurately are they reported. DC had a water lead problem over a decade ago, and the EPA under-reported the actual levels by a significant amount.

@Ronald Kostoff:

Thank you for posting the link re Dr. Hayes/atrazine. I am still reading through the article (absolutely incredble!).

Am now reading the below:

"...The E.P.A. approved the continued use of atrazine in October, the same month that the European Commission chose to remove it from the market. The European Union generally takes a precautionary approach to environmental risks, choosing restraint in the face of uncertainty. In the U.S., lingering scientific questions justify delays in regulatory decisions. Since the mid-seventies, the E.P.A. has issued regulations restricting the use of only five industrial chemicals out of more than eighty thousand in the environment. Industries have a greater role in the American regulatory process—they may sue regulators if there are errors in the scientific record—and cost-benefit analyses are integral to decisions: a monetary value is assigned to disease, impairments, and shortened lives and weighed against the benefits of keeping a chemical in use...."

..."monetary value is assigned to disease, impairments, and shortened lives and weighed against the benefits of keeping a chemical in use..."

Now just insert 'vaccine' in lieu of 'chemical,' and voila. Just makes me furious. We live in an extremely toxic world. The injustice 'by' man 'to' man, overwhelms the senses...

Linda1,

"Glyphosate is presently a huge political issue that - no surprise - our media is not telling us about."

Good observation. Stephanie Seneff of MIT has written much about it, and its relation to myriad diseases, including autism. She states that glyphosate is synergistic with aluminum.

The second most widely used herbicide in the USA is atrazine. It also poses serious health risks. One of the most notable researchers who exposed some of these risks is Professor Tyrone Hayes. The following article is an excellent summary of the trials and tribulations he has faced in trying to expose the truth (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation). it shows the Government-Industrial-Media Complex (GIMC) at work in defaming anyone who has the audacity to reveal the truth, and the challenges and sacrifices an ethical researcher faces in doing what's right.

In researching my eBook about Pervasive Causes of Diseases, I came across countless articles like this over a wide spectrum of harmful products. I am starting to believe that, rather than being very rare occurrences, these situations are closer to Business as Usual when it comes to research with high commercial or political sensitivity. This is why, in Chapter 9 of my book, I question the credibility of the biomedical literature. There is too much manufactured research being published, and, as in the atrazine example, the complicity of the regulatory agencies allows the distortions to proceed unabated.

David,

"Of course the poisoning by other means such as glyphosate, etc., is real -- but it's much more difficult to make a political issue at the present..."

Glyphosate is presently a huge political issue that - no surprise - our media is not telling us about.

Check out GM Watch. The EU is debating whether to renew the license to use glyphosate. Lots going on.

A few examples:

"France, Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands rebel against relicensing of Monsanto’s glyphosate"
Lorraine Chow
EcoWatch, March 7, 2016
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/07/eu-licensing-monsanto-glyphosate/

Excerpt:

"A number of European Union member countries are rebelling against the European Commission’s plans to approve the relicensing of glyphosate."

"The Guardian reported that experts from the EU’s 28 member states are scheduled to vote on relicensing glyphosate on Monday and Tuesday in Brussels, however the vote may be postponed due to reservations that several EU countries have over glyphosate’s health risks....

French Minister of Ecology Ségolène Royal urges for an outright ban on glyphosate herbicides across the EU, basing the decision over the IARC’s findings.

Similarly, The Guardian quoted Swedish environment minister Åsa Romson saying, “We won’t take risks with glyphosate and we don’t think that the analysis done so far is good enough. We will propose that no decision is taken until further analysis has been done and the EFSA scientists have been more transparent about their considerations.”

“We are raising concerns because our citizens are raising concerns,” Romson added. “They want to feel safe and secure with food and production in our society.”

The Netherlands also called for a postponement of the EU-wide decision with Marcel van Beusekom, a spokesman for the Netherlands agriculture ministry, commenting, “If there is no possibility to postpone the vote, then we will vote against the proposal.”

Commission officials told The Guardian that a vote would not go ahead if support for relicensing continued to erode.

“If we see that many states want to think it over or there is a growing [opposition], if there is not a qualified majority, I doubt that it will be put to a vote,” one official said. “The ball is in the member states’ court.”

Licensing for glyphosate ends in June and the European Commission is proposing to grant the herbicide a new 15-year lease.

This move by France and their EU partners is a major blow to Monsanto and other large pesticide companies “which rely on glyphosate-based herbicides for a large percentage of their global profits,” Sustainable Pulse wrote.

Indeed, as EcoWatch reported last month, glyphosate is now the “most widely applied pesticide worldwide.” The paper, Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally, revealed that since 1974, when Roundup was first commercially sold, more than 1.6 billion kilograms (or 3.5 billion pounds) of glyphosate has been used in the U.S., making up 19 percent of the 8.6 billion kilograms (or 18.9 billion pounds) of glyphosate used around the world.

The substance is so widely used that it is commonly found in British bread, German beer and the urine of people in 18 countries across Europe, The Guardian said, adding that the chemical is banned or restricted in large parts of Europe because of alleged links to health problems such as birth defects, kidney failure, celiac disease, colitis and autism.

The contradictory conclusions from THE IARC and EFSA regarding the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate spurred 96 prominent scientists from 25 countries to write a letter in strong opposition to the EFSA report.

In addition, nearly 1.5 million people petitioning the EU’s health commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, for a ban on the substance, Sustainable Pulse reported.

According to The Guardian, “an EFSA panel based its recommendation that glyphosate was safe enough for a new lease of life on six industry-funded studies that have not been fully published.”

This video from the Corporate Europe Observatory, a non-profit corporate lobbying research group, alleges that Big Food corporations and biotech companies, including Monsanto, might have intimate ties with EFSA:… [video here http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/07/eu-licensing-monsanto-glyphosate/2/]"

--------------------------------

"Overwhelming majority of Germans contaminated by glyphosate"

By Nicole Sagener, Translated By Samuel Morgan
EurActiv.de, 7 Mar 2016
http://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/overwhelming-majority-of-germans-contaminated-by-glyphosate/

The herbicide glyphosate can enter the body through food or drinking water. A new study has shown that the majority of Germans have been contaminated by the compound. EurActiv Germany reports.

A worrying three-quarters of the German population have in fact been contaminated by the controversial herbicide, according to a study carried out by the Heinrich Böll Foundation. The report analysed glyphosate residue in urine and it concluded that 75% of the target group displayed levels that were five times higher than the legal limit of drinking water. A third of the population even showed levels that were between ten and 42 times higher than what is normally permissible.

Glyphosate residue was recorded in 99.6% of the 2,009 people monitored by the study. The most significant values were found in children aged from zero to nine and adolescents aged 10 to 19, particularly those individuals raised on farms. Meat eaters also displayed higher levels of glyphosate contamination than vegetarians or vegans.

“The investigation confirmed the findings of the Federal Environment Agency, in regards to the majority of the population having glyphosate residue in their urine,” said retired veterinarian Monika Krüger, who supervised the study. The investigation was the largest of its kind ever carried out.

Krüger emphasised that these results show that further studies have to be carried out in order to fully understand the link between exposure to glyphosate and disease and other health problems.

Harald Ebner, a genetic engineering and bio-economic policy with the German Greens, warned that “now nearly every single one of us has been contaminated by plant poison, it is clear to me that no new authorisations for 2031 should be issued”.

(more of article at link)
--------------------------------------------

Now, considering what is going on in Europe, who is monitoring the amount of glyphosate in American urine? NO ONE.

With all the $billions going to the NIH et al, how much has been allocated to measure American glyphosate contamination? Anyone know? Want to guess that it's ZERO?

Who in our government is calling for studies? NO ONE. Who is advocating for a ban on glyphosate?

No one, because Monsanto, together with Pharma and Big Telecom, owns our government.

Dr. Kostoff,
Which proves that this is not a representative democracy. Our government is chosen by a select few unelected people who remain in power no matter what the people think or want. The people do not choose anyone. The people are completely powerless.

and con.

Re Trump:
there is no more convincing research than own experience, which apparently Trump has with regard to vaccine induced autism. Only the people, who don't understand how science works and how corrupted by corporate interests it has become, idolize opinions of so called scientific authorities, who very often are just drug pushers and dealers.

David M. Burd.

"but a candidate on National TV cannot be denied."

What are the chances of that happening? Here's my take of the present situation.

Trump appears to be the only candidate who's made any sort of statement questioning the efficacy of the present vaccination schedule. What more could be expected of him at this point?

As I pointed out previously, he is under attack from all sides. The Press has taken a very hard line against him, amplifying and distorting any real or perceived miscues. The Republican establishment has started multiple efforts to deny him sufficient delegates for the convention. Even if he were to obtain sufficient delegates, who knows whether the rules would be changed at the last moment. I've seen that possibility addressed. Rubio has decided, or has been coerced, to commit political suicide by getting down into the gutter with Trump. The latter may not affect Trump's hard-line followers, but may dissuade those somewhat undecided.

The debates are of particular concern. They tend to be scheduled before significant voting events. They are designed for specific types of people, such as Cruz (a debating champion at Princeton), Rubio to a lesser extent, and people like Clinton and Obama as well. Trump holds his own, but that's really not his strong point.

I didn't see last night's debate, but from what I've read, he was quizzed far more than any other candidate. And, the questions appeared very detailed, with slides and even videos of his past statements. There were questions about some of his business practices.

Now, what people want to know about is what any candidate will do for jobs, national defense, foreign trade, health policy, and other related issues. It seems somewhat irrelevant to ask a person running a large company about minute business details. So, it seems to me the debates have become a stacked deck against Trump.

He can avoid the debates, but look at what happened in Iowa when he did. Attendance is essentially mandatory. So, he's really under enormous pressure and on the defensive. Given that background, why in the world would he unilaterally raise the issue of over-vaccination. That's extremely controversial, with no Congressional support, no media support, no support from the mainline medical community, and not much support from the electorate. That would only become a focal point for more fire, and given the image of anti-vaxxers that has been placed in the mind of the public by the Press and medical community, might become the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't see him raising ANY of the toxic substance issues I've raised in any of my previous comments, and in fact I see him trying to move somewhat more toward the center/mainstream to release some of the pressure.

@ dnj3forever:
I am very sorry about the passing of your child. Very sad and tragic, when children die. Perhaps it is too late to save American population, as most young people are already physically and neurologically damaged by toxic vaccines. May be they won't be able to produce healthy offsprings, even if they manage to reproduce. May be Americans will share the fate of Maya Indians - i.e. will be degraded to primitive life in stone age era. And this destruction of US will be a direct effect of criminal, moronic, extremely corrupted politicians running US regime. But we won't know this for sure, before we try at all cost to save young generations of Americans by electing a politician not corrupted by establishment mafia. Only Trump is such politician at present time.

correction; of course I meant "hundreds of millions of pounds of neurological pesticides" I left out "of pounds"

Reading Dr. Kostoff's comment I realized there is no science talk in the debates. Is there any discussion of science and technology at all? I haven't listened to all of them so I'm not sure. But it seems like with each election cycle, the public is being more and more removed from what matters and from reality itself. Remember when we used to talk about stem cells at least? There is none of that anymore. The only topics are about how to facilitate the rapid growth of the scientific mountain and how to make the results of scientific discoveries (including health care and drugs) available to all citizens and how to shun others (abortion). Other than that, the direction of science and technology, ongoing foundational influences on our culture, seem to be left out of the public square completely. THOSE decisions are not for us or for our elected officials, and probably even our Courts, to make. That is the untouchable realm of the scientists and engineers. Beyond just business, science itself has been placed above the common man's (and the elected government's) reach.

I agree with No way No how that "The only convincing you do by endorsing Trump is cementing the idea in many people's heads that vaccine-questioners are a crazy lot."

Trump is a ego-inflated narcissist who is more worried about the length of his various appendages than about autism. It's clear he hasn't done any research at all on the subject.

If you agree with his other positions, fine. But if you are only supporting him because you think he will be an ally to the autism community once in office, I suspect you are in for a major disappointment if he wins.

I agree with no-vac. I also agree with with many thoughts/opinions from other commenters. It simply has come down to this for me: America has sold its soul to a bunch of bloodthirsty profiteers. All of the safeguards that have been put in place to protect children have been successfully destroyed or severely compromised. And as RFK pointed out, the last protection in place is the parent and we are witnessing state after state trying to do away with that. Trump is by far not the perfect candidate, but what are our options? The well being of America's future generations should be a priority, and judging by the health of my own kids, sadly one now deceased, I fear it might already be too late.

no-vac,

I agree. Only a new president, who will grasp actual knowledge, and who will confront the Vaccine Armageddon now upon us, can stop our country's destruction.

Autism and all the other deadly/destructive consequences of the The Schedule must be brought immediately to any Candidates who will listen, as I said in my earlier comment.

It's worth repeating: The American Public has been purposefully been kept ignorant of the Child Immunization Schedule, a document I call the most destruction document in history.
IF The Schedule is dramatically displayed by any Candidate, I can hear the "collective gasp" from the audience. When I show it to acquaintances or friends, they are ALL taken back by its implications.

I don't see any other candidate besides Trump, who can save the US now. And, if you can't save the children from massive poisoning with vaccines, you have no future as a country. Plain and simple. I already see that practically all young technicians who are employed by various utility companies are from Africa, Arab countries, Asia or Latin America. I don't see anybody born and raised in US among them. Why? Because Americans have been terribly poisoned by vaccines and can’t learn even a simple craft. About 80% of graduate students in hard sciences at US universities are foreign born, because young Americans are too brain damaged and too uneducated to qualify. Also US generals complain that about 90% of recruit candidates are mentally or physically retarded, hence don't qualify. They were all vaccines poisoned. If we don't halt this vaccination madness of Americans children to death or injury now, we are not going to have a country tomorrow. Only Trump can stop this corporate crime against the children. He understands gravity of the problem and is brave enough to take on the pharma mafia. Hence for me – only Trump 2016. This election is a battle for national survival.

Trump for me if I had a vote;vote for change vote for Trump.

MMR RIP

I wish I could support Donald Trump, but I agree with David Foster.

J.R., Trump seems less interventionist than Hillary. Newsflash: congress is bought or blackmailed, that much is obvious now. One of those executive orders like Obama was trying for guns is needed and you will get that from no one except maybe Trump

I agree that Trump is the only candidate who has voiced our concerns about the effects of vaccinations on our children. He has spoken out about how he has friends whose children were affected by the vaccines and spiraled into an autism diagnosis. I also think he has the courage to stand up to the CDC, NIH, etc. and get to the truth of what happened to our children. However, I just read an article about his Health Reform plan. He is planning to change the Medicaid distribution of money to the states and turn it into a "block grant" program that will significantly reduce the federal money the states get for our children who rely on the Medicaid Waiver for all their services and supports. I hope this does not happen and I am upset that he has taken this position.

For those who think Trump is the only candidate fighting big pharma's power grip, you might want to read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-most-radical-idea-big-pharma_us_56d4c8b9e4b03260bf77e6b9

Bendetta posted Trump's words:
Trump: “We are not allowed to negotiate Medicare drug prices. Can you believe it? We pay about $300 billion more than we are supposed to, than if we negotiated the price. So there’s $300 billion on day one we solve.”

–Donald Trump, remarks at Plymouth State University, Holderness, N.H., Feb. 7, 2016

Well, have you actually listened to Bernie Sanders? He has not only said almost that exact statement, but he has also actually done several things as a senator to try to reign in pharma:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/5_ways_bernie_sanders_is_leading_the_fight_against_big_pharmas_unconscionable_greed_partner/

I get the cynicism and anger about what he has said publicly on vaccines--and I agree it is concerning--but when you consider that he is running for the democratic nomination--and like it or not, the majority of Americans still think vaccines are health-giving miracles and anyone who questions them is a luddite or a nut--speaking out against them isn't really a winning idea at this point.

Having groups and otherwise "progressive" figureheads from this movement of people questioning vaccine safety back Trump just reinforces the impression many people, especially imo most progressives, have that vaccine questioners are just ignorant fools. If you want to convince those who currently dismiss vaccine concerns that there are real and very significant questions that need investigation and answers--backing Trump is not the way to achieve that end, imo.

After the Tuesday caucus, I was checking the news to see what I could find about how Sanders was doing. It actually took some searching to find any report. Huffpo, Google news, Bing etc overflowed with reports about Trump and his wins. Report after report after report. Trump. Trump. Trump. Crickets when it came to news about the democratic caucuses--especially the Colorado and New Hampshire ones where Bernie won. I think there is a reason for that.

The ptb don't want the masses to hear what Bernie Sanders is saying because what he is proposing and what he is saying he wants to change is not to their liking. Unlike Trump, Sanders actually cares about the "little people." He treats all people with respect and dignity and seems to me to truly care about other people and our country. He has lots of good ideas and a lifetime of working and fighting for those ideas that show he isn't just giving lip service to whatever he thinks will get people's blood pumping.

Trump is an unpredictable loudmouth who has a deplorable track record in terms of his treatment of lots of other people (did you guys just miss his mockery of the disabled reporter?), concern for the environment, and ability to work well with others. He may be able to build extravagant hotels using other people's money and legal or illegal non-US workers, but I hardly find any of that history a qualification to become a political leader. I find much of what he says despicable and deplorable. From what I see, he appeals mostly to the worst side of human tendencies, not our higher ideals.

If the ptb really don't want Trump to get elected, then why is it that our mogul-controlled media is giving all their political coverage to him? Lately the only thing more common than pharma ads are stories about Trump. You might ask yourselves, why is that? And why is it that, in contrast, stories about Bernie Sanders are almost as rare as stories about vaccine-related injuries?

The only convincing you do by endorsing Trump is cementing the idea in many people's heads that vaccine-questioners are a crazy lot. Not tough to do since that is what most of them already think.

"It makes me sad to think that as a community we would not support the only candidate that has had the courage to say that he knows children that went in for their shots, got very ill, and were later diagnosed with Autism!!!"

Has it come to that???? A politician makes a statement, without a plan. A statement that's not supported with any specific details.....only a statement. The same statement he made in 2012 and has never elaborated on and has never publically made any more statement about until the next time he's running for office, is enough to say Well, that's my guy! If that's enough for you...fine. But don't say "it's sad people It makes me sad to think that as a community we would not support the only candidate that has had the courage to say that he knows children that went in for their shots, got very ill, and were later diagnosed with Autism!!!

What the heck does that mean? Have the "community" become so desperate that connecting the words: VACCINE----AUTISM----DAMAGE---I BELIEVE----out loud, is compelling enough. Isn't that the same as the CDC/PHRMA saying: VACCINES-----SAFE-----EFFECTIVE---DON'T CAUSE AUTISM----SAVED THE WORLD? There is no substance behind the CDC's statement which the "community" rejects on the basis of the research that has been done over the years by each individual. Where is your research on TRUMP? When vaccine true believers float the CDC's mantra about vaccines the "community" pretty much mocks those people and say "well, they haven't done the research" or "they need to wake up". The behavior here is the same.

Questions I have been looking on the net via the many Trump websites and research from 2012 that I have not found answers to:

-What's his plan to take on not only the pharmaceutical industry but also the members of congress and the senate who are financially supported by pharmaceutical money? Do you think it's wise to wait until he's in office to receive an answer?

Trump started talking abut vaccines in 2012 but he hasn't made any moves in the direction of disclosing the fraud and outright corruption of the various government agencies that are working to push mandatory vaccines on the public. Surely between 2012 and now he's had time to research the current information that reveals the fraud yet I have not read where he talks about Dr. William Thompson's confession that the CDC committed fraud by omitting vital information on how the MMR does create autism in Black Baby Boys. He's had time to talk about the British High court decision that exonerates Professor Dr. Walker Smith, who was one of the co-authors on the Wakefield report. The Lancet hospital medical histories were all written by clinician colleague Professor Walker-Smith-not Wakefield. Professor Walker-Smith was completely exonerated following his High Court Appeal in 2012. Judge Lord Justice Mitting took less than four days to demolish Deer's evidence and the panel's 'inadequate and superficial' handling of it. Dr Wakefield, by then effectively banished, from the UK, could not afford the costs involved in an appeal, and Prof Murch, who was permitted to keep his medical license, remains in a guilty but 'admonished' limbo. Why is he not talking about this?

If Trump wanted to expose the corruption in the industry why not provide Drs. Wakefield and Murch with the funding to launch their own court case in the UK therefore effectively eliminating the number one repeated claim that there is no connection between the MMR and autism. IMHO the foundation of the CDC/WHO corruption rides on the Wakefield Report. If Trump exposes that fraud-it would be the game changer. That would be money well spend for Trump and I'm sure with his legion of tax attorney's & accountents he could write it off his income tax.

-Why isn't Trump directly the MSM to sites such as these:
-124 Research papers supporting Vaccine/Autism Causation Ginger Taylor
-https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/124-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link.

-How about the work of the eminent Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld who is know as the “Godfather of Autoimmunology” with over 25 textbooks to his name and hundreds of peer review papers. Dr. Shoenfeld has produced a body of research pointing to vaccines as a factor in the increase in autoimmune diseases.
http://www.wakingtimes(dot)com/2016/01/04/attacking-ourselves-top-doctors-reveal-vaccines-turn-our-immune-system-against-us/.

Surely Trump must know about these because he's had about 4 years to hire people to read this info and report it to him-if he himself can't find the time to read it.

-Trump spent millions of dollars and hired a posse to go to Hawaii to find information that President Obama was not born there-so what's stopping him from funding an investigation into the CDC's fraud on Vaccines and the fact that they cause Autism as well as other diseases?

-I am looking for specifics on what Trump is saying and will do, what he knows and what is his plan to take on the industry. Not seeing anything specific, only the talking with no walking, I am alarmed that so many in the safe vaccine movement ( anti-vax, few vax-safer vax) are putting their faith in someone who is merely giving lip service. Have people become so desperate that they are willing to put critical thinking and common sense aside to support someone who has said essential nothing? What people don't realize is in order for ANY President to make such a significant change the obstacles to overcome are enormous:

-getting the support of the majority of congress & senate. From the lack of support Congressman Posey has had this may be impossible. Pharma owns both branches. Buying themselves a congressperson is the best investment corporations can make.

-Next obstacle-all the global trade agreements because close to 98% of all vaccines are manufactured in other countries. Globalist are not gong Allow Trump to mess with that and that's what's going to be Trumps downfall because he's talking abut bringing jobs back to the US and the globalist worked so hard to move them out of the US.

There are other considerations but you get the idea. What's his plan?

As a community-we should not dumb ourselves down because someone says something we want to hear. But if you think about it, Trump hasn't said ANYTHING. Some of the response to other comments I've made have been slightly on the acrimonious side and that's fine. No one likes their comfort zone shaken. Having family members with vaccine injured children I have seen the day to day struggles and the affects this challenge has on family life. I see how my cousin worries endlessly about her young adult autistic child, what's going to happen to her-especially if she's left alone.
Knowing the struggles and challenges ahead I don't understand why people are eagerly and willing to settle for a person who just makes a statement because he really hasn't even taken a stand on the issue--only lip service. I want better than that for my family members and all people who have been affected by vaccines. As a "community" we should be demanding "SPECIFIC" not only from Trump but all candidates in areas even beyond vaccine damage. As far as I can tell until Trump lays out what his plans, WHAT'S HE COMMITTING TO DO ---he's just dangling a carrot in front of a desperate community. It's called politicking.

Here's a thought. Let's compose a letter to Trump, send it to his campaign with specific questions on what will he do for the vaccine damaged children in the US, what is his plan to take on and clean up the CDC and FDA. What is his plan to get some kind of control over the influence the pharmaceutical industry has on the policy makers in Washington who represent corporations not the American people who elected them. This will be a start.

As we all know Congress holds 99% of the power when it comes to this stuff. So unless we can get some NEW people in there who have open minds this idea that Trump could do much is laughable.
I'm surprised that no one is concerned about his admiration for Kim Jong-un assassinating rivals(“It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle, he wiped out this one, that one. This guy doesn’t play games.”) and that Vladimir Putin is “highly respected”.
My son is vaccine injured and I LOATHE big pharma. I want change but the change we get with Trump may to find we are in WWIII because he decides on whim to invade someplace or worse drop a bomb. I prefer to get new people in Congress who take our rights seriously and will do something about it.

@ Ronald

"Consider what's happening. The Republicans have a candidate who has energized the base, is winning and increasing the plurality so far, and has raised the turnout substantially. If any Republican has a ghost of a chance against Hillary Clinton, it is Trump .... Yet, the Press is almost solidly against him, and the Republican Party is mounting parallel major efforts to block his nomination"

Here are Trump's issues as you define them:

"No abortion; no legal requirement for hiring women and minorities; not comfortable with same-sex marriage; support keeping God in public sphere; weaken EPA regulations; stricter punishment to reduce crime; absolute right to gun ownership; kill Obamacare; low priority on green energy; no pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens; expand the military; support American exceptionalism; prefer market-led recovery to stimulus; vouchers for school choice."

Those positions .. on those issues .. comprise what has been the national Republican Party platform for decades.

The Republican "establishment" .. "talks the talk" .. every election year .. then after gaining political control of the House, Senate and even the oval office .. that same "establishment" refuses to "walk the walk" on just about every single issue you listed.

Especially on global "free" trade ..NAFTA, GATT, WTO, on and on .. where the Republicans are in lock step with the Democrats .. our national sovereignty .. our jobs .. our manufacturing base .. be damned.

Who do you think the Republican powerbrokers want to fulfill their promise to "build a wall" .. Rubio, Cruz .. who already occupy a Senate seat yet neither one has done anything substantial towards securing our borders .. or .. Donald Trump who began his campaign making securing our borders a high priority if he is elected .. all but forcing Cruz and Rubio to once again "talk the talk".

The last thing the Republican elite want is someone like Trump .. who is a true outsider .. not beholding to anyone for MONEY to fund future campaigns ..

That's why the Republican establishment is doing their best to STOP TRUMP .. even if their STOP TRUMP effort results in another four years a Clinton Presidency.

Just my opinion

I think the viewpoint expressed in this article is a Monumental mistake and I would like to explain why.

One of the main challenges which will face any group which dares to suggest even the mere existence of any vaccine safety issues will be to convince others of their credibility. This is extremely difficult because the vast majority of health agency and government officials and citizens alike share the dogmatic belief that vaccines are perfectly safe and highly effective...the more the better and bring on the Zika vaccine!

For this reason I strongly suggest that we choose very carefully the media outlets, journalists, external groups, and candidates we engage and reference in these efforts. While some may already share our opinions on this particular issue, in my opinion that does not by itself mean we should ally ourselves with them.

One perfect example of this is Alex Jones. Many may disagree, but in my opinion it is not helpful for any vaccine safety advocate to ever cite or even mention anything coming from this man. While it is true that he is one of the few high-profile pundits who sees the truth about vaccines, he also "sees" a whole lot of other very wacky things which make it extremely easy for any casual reader to dismiss anything which includes his name.

Along these same lines, I cannot overstate how Huge (pun intended) a mistake it is to support Donald Trump simply because he agrees with us on any one particular issue.

This man is truly dangerous, and anyone who does not see that is, in my opinion, either plunging their head down a hole in denial, or is one of those Americans who find their darker side given license to freely express itself within the atmosphere of hate, misogyny, xenophobia, arrogance and hubris which surrounds this immature narcissist of a man child.

For context, is there any one here who thinks that the Japanese interment program during WWII was a Good Thing? If you do, please don't bother responding...I seriously have no interest in what you have to say. But seriously, Trump has already indicated his support for something very similar and with much less provocation. Where else do you think he would take us?

Hitler did some marvelous things for Germany's economy, culture and world standing, right up until the point where he decided to attack neighboring countries and then kill millions of Jews because he didn't like them.

Learn from history or you WILL be doomed repeat it.

Democrats and other critics have hammered away at drug costs in recent months, raising investor concerns that future price cuts could hurt pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Biotech stocks tumbled last September after Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton tweeted her intent to tackle high prices.

And so, and so, what am I to think of either one?

Keep in mind the smirking smile on the Pharma boy CEO when he raised the price of a reasonable AIDs drug to very high price.

Could this break some of the power of the drug companies?

Thanks again JB. We live in a medical fascist nation at the present, with a 5,000 page secret trade agreement / treaty in Congress which will create world taxes and a world government that will control every bank account on the planet.

Perhaps Trump will release the vaccine records of his children and grandchildren... hep be at birth ??? flu shots for everyone every year ???

Perhaps compare vaccine schedules with the Putin family...

That would be a simple way to start the conversation. How could a candidate not bring up this children's issue???

How in the hell could you lose votes on the biggest medical fraud in history ???

Don’t really care about Trumps tax returns,

Bob Moffit,

" please identify Trump's "major positions" .. that are "not all that different from those of Cruz, Rubio or Kashich"?"

Here's a sampling, comparing Trump/Cruz/Rubio.

No abortion; no legal requirement for hiring women and minorities; not comfortable with same-sex marriage; support keeping God in public sphere; weaken EPA regulations; stricter punishment to reduce crime; absolute right to gun ownership; kill Obamacare; low priority on green energy; no pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens; expand the military; support American exceptionalism; prefer market-led recovery to stimulus; vouchers for school choice.

Well, thank you, J.B. Handley! I also voted for our current president twice, believing, like a fool, that he meant what he said about being the autism president. I also voted for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. All because I believed they would help my grandson and all the children and young adults like him. That was before she did her infamous interview of the CDC chief, or whatever that lady in a military uniform's title is. I regret all three of those votes, and for your reasons.

I changed my basically lifelong political party last summer, and yesterday I voted for Mr. Trump. So did a lot of people in my state. I hope your suggestion catches on!

I think Trump is the only one that has the balls to stand up to Big Pharma. He's got my vote!

@ Dr. Kostoff - You say:"Yet, the Press is almost solidly against him" (Trump, that is).

Might you expand on the Vaccine Carnage (my own description) mandated by the CDC Immunization Schedule for Children? As to "the Press" you cite, how do you get around their stranglehold on medical (mis)information?

I claim the U.S. CDC Immunization Schedule is The Most Lethal Document in the history of modern civilization.

I submit that Dan Olmsted/Mark Blaxill could get the attention of Trump - if they try.

Can you, Dr. Kostoff, or will you, make an attempt to inform Donald Trump (or other candidates) on what your advocate?

Please keep us updated if autism nonprofit groups are endorsing Trump or any candidate.

I see the bigger picture. Getting big money out of politics is the key to curing things on multiple fronts including the nationwide push for vaccine mandates. Only one candidate with a consistent track record proposes to do just that and he is the only one that does. That is Bernie Sanders.

I am down with Trump.

I'm almost convinced that Trump might be worth the risk. I tend to agree that it is hard to find a greater injustice in the mad world than the vaccine mess. But. Voting for Trump is like getting vaccinated. You just don't know. He is smart enough to see the problem. Does he really care? he understands that millions of sensible decent people without a racist cell in their bodies are totally fed up and infuriated at being called racist just because they want laws upheld and some sanity on immigration. They are sick of being told every day by the liars in the media that there is no difference between immigration and illegal immigration. Trump sees this. But does he really care? Judging from his past, I doubt it. He is a big government crony capitalist through and through. He cares only about Trump. His supporters love to say he can't be bought. Only because up til now he has been the buyer. He brags about buying politicians and always getting what he wants. Given he recent history of being on both sides of everything, how can we have any confidence he won't have another transformation and suddenly realize that vaccines are great? What will he do when he is no longer the buyer of influence but the seller? If his Soprano-type friends are told by big Pharma to help Donald to see the light what will he do? This is a real quandry. But the alternative is probably far far worse.

@Nicole if you want endless war and autism vote Hillary. If you won't status quo on autism then by all means vote for Cruz or Rubio. They are BOUGHT.

Dr. Wakefield is not and has never been a fraud, yet he is constantly called a fraud. Donald Trump has actually engaged in fraudulent activities, such as Trump University where people paid $25,000 to $30,000 and did not receive what they were promised; law suits are in process now. I believe that more and more bad stuff will come out about Trump as this campaign progresses. How will we look if major autism organizations endorse him? Just more fodder for the vaccine defenders, which will be used to tarnish everyone on our side of these issues.

Thank you so much for this. It is where I am at as well.

This is an extremely short-sighted position, and it pains me that you would overlook this man's bigotry in favor of his stance on one specific issue. We cannot stand for the ignorance and racism this candidate promotes. If you think having him as president will make the world a better place for anyone's child with disabilities you are sorely mistaken. I've been a supporter of Age of Autism for many years, but cannot support the message you are promoting in this post.

I just have one question and I'm not using this name because of Trump's recent apparent flub (or brain fart). I'm using it because it makes the point.

Would you all be willing to overlook everything else if it was David Duke who said that vaccines cause autism?

"There is of course a mountain of evidence of malfeasance by the CDC over autism and vaccines - perhaps that is a good place to start."

This statement says it all. Real change can only begin when those in the highest positions of authority are charged/punished with the crimes they have committed, and the rampant scientific misconduct exposed. Then safeguards need to be implemented to protect children from government officials, the pharmaceutical industry, and legislators.Put medical decisions back where they belong...between the patient(parents) and their healthcare provider.

Trump 2016
,

It's never ending. Nothing has changed all of our lives as much as this has.
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS TO US AS MUCH AS THIS. So sorry if this makes us look selfish and stupid to other people who don't get it. I don't care. #Trump2016

***********

For what its worth, this statement make you look smart, not stupid.

There is of course a mountain of evidence of malfeasance by the CDC over autism and vaccines - perhaps that is a good place to start.