SPARK Autism Research - You're Going The WRONG Way!!
Texas Roundup Showdown: Cotton Versus Wine Growers

Dachel Wake Up: NYT Bashing Vaccine Choice

Dachel Morning Wake UoDec 28, 2016, New York Times: Your Sister Won’t Vaccinate Her Son. Can You Help Him?

By Kwame Anthony Appiah

But the anti-vaccination movement is not, alas, a bastion of rationality. So, assuming his parents don’t have a change of heart, I fear your nephew may have to wait. The good news is that he doesn’t have to wait to turn 18; in Oregon, you’re free to seek medical procedures without parental consent as soon as you are 15. Until then, you can continue to be the voice of sage counsel.

We’re told that “Kwame Anthony Appiah considers readers’ ethical quandaries.” Really?

Appiah clearly missed the boat with this dismissive response. His religious-like zeal for vaccinations leads him to one of the most IRRATIONAL explanations.  

Like virtually everyone in the mainstream media, Appiah refuses to consider that there could be any problem with our ever-expanding vaccine schedule. This total failure to honestly investigate both sides of the vaccine controversy is the hallmark of press corruption and apathy.

“Vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives” is the worn-out mantra used by every newspaper and TV network, but regardless of the censorship, the truth is coming out. There are just too many sick kids in America today, and too many worried parents who just don’t buy it anymore.

In a Dec 28, 2016 piece in the New York Magazine Adam Raymond wrote, "Despite broad disagreements on politically relevant conspiracy theories, Democrats and Republicans did find an issue to unite them — vaccines and autism. The poll found that 28 percent of Democrats believe 'vaccines have been shown to cause autism' and 29 percent of Republicans do, too."

Seriously? Add up those two figures and it's quite obvious that a huge number of people DON'T BUY THE OFFICIAL DENIALS.

Anyone who looks briefly into the controversy has to realize that what the NY Times and every major news source puts out is propaganda, not authentic journalism.

A student of the vaccine/autism debate has got ask why the press NEVER  brings up these critical topics:

Eli Lilly's thimerosal "study" in 1929

Julie Gerberding leaving the CDC and going to Merck after years of promoting vaccines

Hannah Poling

Poul Thorsen

William Thompson


The volumes of research on vaccine side effects by well-credentialed experts from leading universities

The absence of a vaccinate/unvaccinated study

The absence of a study showing us a comparable rate among adults

The absence of a study on regressive autism

The absence of a study on the cumulative effect of the all the vaccines our children are required to receive

The absence of any liability on the part of doctors and vaccine makers

The failure of doctors to do any pretesting to determine which children may be susceptible for a vaccine reaction

The dozens of cases of vaccine induced autism that the federal government has compensated

 Kwame Anthony Appiah is typical. His grade school level response here shows he's been programmed to defend vaccines while covering up the real issue.

Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.




I forgot to include this graph:



What were the definitions of "acute polio"in every one of those countries before and after the introduction of the vaccines and please describe the laboratory tests that were carried out at the time to confirm every reported diagnosis?

Feel free to answer the questions I asked Cia.

Hans Litten

Cia & Eindeker seem to be a "tag" team ?

So where is the polio vaccine today ? Causing paralysis all across India , is where it is !

Anne McElroy Dachel

Eindeker's comment is typical of the pro-vaccine people.

This issue has nothing to do with the claim that vaccines prevent disease. It's a distraction.

What we're talking about is an unchecked, unsafe vaccine schedule mired in scandals, conflicts of interest, and charges of corruption. The idiotic pretense that every vaccine is safe for every child in America has become an article of faith. No one is allowed to voice an concern.

Meanwhile, we inject known toxins into children or they can't go to school, at the same time we do nothing to predetermine which chidlren might be at risk for a vaccine reaction.

This is medieval medical in a fascist regime.


I don't know if this comment be published but ATSC there is no better illustration of the effect of polio vaccination on the incidence of paralytic (acute) polio than the experiences of 3 western European countries immediately after the inactivated (Salk) polio vaccine became available in 1955. One country, Holland, immediately adopted this vaccine into its well organised national vaccine program, because of an outbreak of polio in 1956 resulting in >1700 cases of paralytic polio. A second country, the UK, delayed for a couple of years and the 3rd country, West Germany, did not offer the IPV Salk vaccine at all. The Germans eventually offered the oral vaccine in 1961/62. The reasons behind these different national reactions are discussed here as is the incidence of acute polio during 1946-64 in these 3 countries. (As this is the inactivated vaccine there is no need to consider acute flaccid paralysis.) Fig 1 in the paper shows the differential decline in paralytic cases of polio between the 3 countries: Holland first, followed by the UK with a delay due to slower uptake, but Germany shows no such decline in the incidence of paralytic polio until after the introduction of the PPV programme. There is no stronger evidence for vaccine effectiveness than the difference in polio incidence between 2 neighbouring countries, one offering the vaccine, the other not.



"The polio vaccines were one of the biggest achievements of the twentieth century.....At the time the Salk vaccine was introduced, tens of thousands of children, also many adults, were being diagnosed with polio every year".

How accurate do you think that figure could have been when former public health officer Dr Herbert Ratner revealed that the National Foundation for Infant Paralysis was paying physicians $25 for each reported diagnosis? "A patient would walk into a doctors office with a limp from an accident. He'd say he had a fever a few days ago...and guess what the diagnosis would be?"

Literally anything that looked like polio at that time was reported as polio, and what do you think would have been the effect of changing the diagnostic criteria several times after the vaccine was introduced?

Do you think that any physician in the 1950s could have been able to tell the difference between poliomyelitis, GBS, ADEM or any other type of paralysis we see today?

Colton Berrett:

Mary-Sue Grivna:

Brianna Browning:

John Berchielli @1.56:

"many thousands of them were crippled by it."

Why would some people be crippled by these viruses when the vast majority suffered no symptoms at all or only had flu-like symptoms? (Injections? Tonsillectomies?)

"During the polio epidemics it was found that people who had their tonsils removed were 3-5 times more likely to develop paralysis….There were many at that time that suggested that polio was an iatrogenic disease…..we caused thousands of cases of paralysis. We did not cause the polio , but we converted people who would have recovered from a viral illness into people with a paralytic illness."­Dr Mark Donohoe MB BS

"We just do not have those numbers of crippled children. "

Thanks to Sister Kenny, doctors no longer strap paralysed children to frames for up to two years or immobilise their bodies and limbs in plaster casts and leg irons. How many of these children would have gone on to live normal lives like Alan Alda and Martin Sheen if their parents could have chosen the Sister Kenny treatment?

I'd like to hear your answer to the question I asked you in December:

"When you were searching through your family tree did you find any of your relatives born from 1900 onwards who died from diseases for which there are vaccines today? And how many of them managed to live well into their 70s, 80s and 90s without vaccines to protect them?"

Hans Litten

ciaparker | January 05, 2017 at 12:38 PM

Yet Again Children Are Left Paralyzed From Oral Polio Vaccines
by Christina England, Health Impact News

On June 17, 2016, the International Business Times (IBT) reported that a strain of the vaccine-derived polio virus has been discovered in Hyderabad, India, and experts have warned that the likelihood of more cases being discovered over the next year is extremely likely.

Reporters stated that:
Experts also said that India’s current immunisation programme, which involves the use of Oral Polio vaccine (OPV), may also pose the risk of the spread of the disease.

They continued:
OPV has a weak or attentuated virus that triggers immune response in children to fight against polio. However, in rare cases when a child excretes the virus, it may multiply in sewage, and undergo mutations which lead to transmission of the disease.

Further, the IBT stated:
However, children who were earlier immunised with the trivalent vaccine (which had P1, P2 and P3 strains) may continue excreting P2 strains for at least sometime. There is also a perceived threat that children who have been immunised now may be prone to infection since they did not get P2 strain of vaccine, according to

Hans Litten

ciaparker | January 05, 2017 at 12:38 PM

Why don't you listen to the Maurice Hilleman recording ?
By his own admission , vaccines are all hype and all spin ! And he was the godfather of it all .
Vaccines are bargain basement technology - his words - and they have been proven authentic.
They all laugh on the recording about causing the Russian loads of cancer\tumors .
I can easily imagine Gerberding & Boyle & DeStefano laughing about our children . Can you ?
Do you see them often ? at work ?

"The polio vaccines were one of the biggest achievements of the twentieth century. "
I am sorry Cia , but giving 120M americans cancer via a lenti-virus sv40 can hardly be called an achievement - perhaps you mean it was the first time it was demonstrated how easy it was to transfer money from the tax payers to the elite and at the same poison the dumb fools.

Gary Ogden

One more thought: Since in the Michigan epidemic three viruses were found, it cannot be called a polio epidemic. The only reasonable explanation is that the toxic cofactor allowed all three viruses to enter the bloodstream and inflame the protective myelin sheaths in the spinal cords of the victims.

Gary Ogden

Jeanette Bishop: Excellent post! Bravo. If we merely put the money we spend worldwide on vaccines into improved nutrition (and I mean turning the food pyramid upside down) worldwide it would have a dramatic positive impact on both infectious-disease rates, and on overall health, as well. It will never happen. But I have great hopes that Dr. Price will bring some sanity to DHHS, begin to restore our right to bodily autonomy, and expose the fraud at the CDC.

Gary Ogden

I'm in the midst of preparing a guest blogpost about polio, so I'm steeped in its minutia. It simply makes no sense that a microbe which has peacefully inhabited the human gut for millennia could become selectively virulent, and only so in the presence of a toxic cofactor, them become completely benign again because of an injection in some people. It defies logic. Sad to say, in South Asia and Nigeria, and other places, no doubt, paralysis at a level without any historical precedent is still with us.

Gary Ogden

ciaparker: I don't understand how you can claim that the polio vaccine eliminated paralytic polio. I suggest you reread the Age of Polio (here, from 2011), the Age of Polio Explosion, and the polio chapter in Dissolving Illusions (Ch. 12). One glaring black swan: In the Michigan polio epidemic of 1958 fecal specimens showed 292 (34%) contained poliovirus, 100 (12%) contained ECHO virus, 73 (8%) contained Coxsackie virus, and 401 (46%) contained no virus at all. Serum antibody testing showed 48 (25%) for poliovirus, 14 (7%) for ECHO virus, 6 (3%) for Coxsackie virus, and 123 (64%) with no viral antibodies. Indeed, the data for paralysis pre- and post-vaccine simply cannot be reconciled in any meaningful way, because of the change in diagnostic criteria, and the naming of new conditions previously classified under the umbrella of polio. In "polio-free" India the number of cases of paralysis increased six-fold between 1996 and 2011, with 60,000 new cases in 2011. That would be equivalent to 2,000 new cases here. This would raise alarm here long before it reached this level. Unlike autism, because of the history of fear-mongering about polio, they wouldn't they wouldn't be able to sweep it under the rug.


Polio and Smallpox are not equivalent to Measles, Hep B, or Chickenpox.
You have to balance incidence and severity with safety and efficacy, and clearly they have failed.


"So then why does anyone get measles in an outbreak if everyone has experienced the new, invisible measles and has permanent antibodies to it?"

I would have thought the answer to that was obvious.

There is no such thing as immunity. Not from vaccines. Not from the disease itself.


You guys are forgetting the biggest sources of disease caused paralysis.

Multiple sclerosis. This did exist in 1950 but was a lot rarer.

Also cerebral palsy (also around in 1950 but rarer).

The Chris Reeve Foundation did a comprehensive survey of paralysis in the US and found that one in 50 Americans have some form of paralysis and of those, 40 per cent have paralysis from disease (I have excluded paralysis from stroke even though vaccines most assuredly do cause strokes).

So that gives around 1 in 120 Americans with paralysis from disease.

If we assume that around 30 per cent of paralytic polio cases were permanent then the figure for Americans paralysed with polio just before the vaccine then that figure would be around 1 in 2000 Americans paralysed with polio.

A staggering increase.

There are some caveats. Both MS and CP existed before the polio vaccine so that would reduce the total increase in paralysis, however, I haven't included stroke caused paralysis in my assessment even though, as I say, strokes can be caused by vaccines (not just polio vaccine).

And this increase is corroborated with modern day iron lung use (we now use positive pressure ventilators).

Current use of Ventilators (what used to be iron lungs) is at least 8 times as common as before the polio vaccine..

From the above we can see that, today, there are around 3 people in a mechanical ventilator in every ICU in the US.

Apparently there are nearly 6000 hospitals in the US (I assume practically every one has an ICU) so that gives around 20,000 people in ventilators in any one time.

In short, adjusting for population, people are around 8 times more likely to be in ventilator today than they were in an iron lung before the polio vaccine (there were 1200 at the so-called height of the polio epidemic: Source: Smithsonian).

Jeannette Bishop

Regarding polio vaccine effect on rates of paralysis:

This page saids poliomyelitis fits under an umbrella term of acute flaccid paralysis:

If the rate of Guillane-barre is 1 in 100,000 then there would be about 3,000 in the U.S. suffering with this condition. This says 2700:

Assuming 3.9 million births in one year every year (which is not exactly the case), maybe 39 cases Guillane-barre a year in U.S.?

There were 120 cases of AFM in 2016 and others from previous years

and being up to date on your polio vaccine is one of the best ways to protect yourself?

There are an estimated 1400 new cases of transverse myelitis each year:

Was all (or much) of the above diagnosed as polio in the early to mid 1900s?

Then around 1950 they were spraying pesticides directly on clothes, food about to be consumed, and people to protect them from diseases such as polio.

Maybe things have improved here (maybe not) in regards to pesticide safety procedures and some of the perceived vaccine success is really due to changes in these practices?

But an estimated 20,000 cases of pesticide poisoning occur each year still. How many involve paralysis (or would without treatment, assuming we have any efficacious treatments--which I don't know anything about) and/or how many would have been diagnosed as polio pre-vaccine?

Doctors no longer perform tonsillectomy just because they might "need to come out" some day ....

So how much credit for appearances of better health given to the vaccine should really be given to physicians doing less harm today through less application of this procedure (and perhaps less of other practices such as immobilization of limbs affected by polio)?

(They don't perform appendectomies as much either, less removal of another part of the lymphatic system. Anyone know why they stopped?)

With multiple enteroviruses, polio vaccine to me seems to be likely to have had as much benefit as the flu vaccine has today, in that while they might find less cases of targeted strains in the vaccinated, in studies of "healthy adults" anyway, they are hard-pressed to show improvement in overall mortality and morbidity, and still they've never attempted to fully ascertain the risks (like how much cancer might be due to polio vaccine or any vaccine).

I wonder how many doctors/public health officials who dismissed concerns about polio vaccine risks in the past, like tumors forming in vaccinated guinea pigs, because" we're dealing with a deadly, paralyzing disease here!" maybe or maybe the prestige of stopping epidemics outweighed risks, or maybe there was solely financial concerns, and dismissed other factors that might have been associated with cases of paralysis maybe "because they were going to take care of things with a vaccine and let other industrial products continue to contribute to 'progress,'" ever thought that one of the ultimate risks might be a health disaster disabling (?...where do we want to draw the line for comparison...most cases of poliomyelitis were rehabilitatable within three years, though not always without residual effects... 1 in 25 children with autism, 1 in 6 with disability or developmental delay...1 in 2 with diagnosed disability or chronic health problem...?) that we'd go on to build upon an incomplete and distorted foundation of knowledge about vaccine efficacy and risks (as well as the risks of other environmental pollutants) and the dogma that automatically is now assigned to any and all doses of "vaccines?"

There are days when I wonder if we need to stop vaccination (and some other things), even at the risk of increased mortality and morbidity (which I'm not sure we'd see, especially if we put as much dogma, promotional PR resources into better nutrition etc) and inconvenience, simply to protect the intellectual capacity of enough of us to figure this out (and maybe prevent the destruction of the human race)?


Hi Cia,
I am not actually sure the rates of paralysis have gone down as much as you think.

From the CDC

The rate of GBS increases with age, and people older than 50 years are at greatest risk for developing GBS. Each year, between 3,000 and 6,000 people in the United States get GBS, regardless of vaccination.

The CDC article does go on to say however,

On very rare occasions, people develop GBS in the days or weeks after getting a vaccination.

So we are talking 3000 to 6000 people developing paralysis every year...



The polio vaccines were one of the biggest achievements of the twentieth century. At the time the Salk vaccine was introduced, tens of thousands of children, also many adults, were being diagnosed with polio every year, and many thousands of them were crippled by it. Sanitation and plumbing were the reason a disease which everyone got as babies in the days of outhouses, became a serious disease. Babies no longer got the disease and permanent immunity to the strains acquired once indoor toilets and improved hygiene became the rule. (Although I'm not advocating a return to unhygienic outhouses.)

Polio was not on its way out in 1955, but had recently made a major comeback. But within two years of the introduction of the vaccine, polio became rare, and within a few more years, it disappeared. It wasn't a coincidence.

Hans Litten

For Cia

However, many of these seemingly intell?igent people fall into the “But, Polio” crowd.

Despite evidence that polio was on the decline long before the introduction of the vaccine, and that sanitation and plumbing improvements are likely the reason for the decline of the disease as opposed to a carcinogenic (sv40) syringe filled with neurotoxins and environmental pesticides, far too many people still hail the polio vaccine as one of the greatest accomplishments of 20th century medicine.


ATSC and rtp,

Many reasonable, well-informed people believe that the polio epidemics were devastating and that the vaccines stopped them. I am one of them. It is simply not true that measles, chickenpox, polio, etc. are continuing unabated because all vaccines are completely ineffective, but they just don't look the way they used to. So then why does anyone get measles in an outbreak if everyone has experienced the new, invisible measles and has permanent antibodies to it? It is simply not true that we still have the same numbers of permanently crippled children from invisible polio, or misdiagnosed polio, that we always had. We just do not have those numbers of crippled children.

I think that if vaccine critics say that there is no serious contagious disease and there never was, that vaccines are always completely ineffective and always have been, then most parents are going to immediately realize that this just isn't true, and won't listen to anything else said. Nor should they.


I don't know where else to post this, and listen to this, and imagine what vaccines would sound like ...


Except that most people who believe that vaccines cause autism are STILL in favor of vaccinating their children and even for MANDATING them for everyone's children. It's hard to understand. I think they're thinking in a huge bloc: VACCINE-PREVENTABLE DISEASES numerous and deadly, ONLY kept within bounds by a 95% rate of vaccination. They need to break it down and look at the diseases one by one, and they'll see that none would be a big threat even if no one vaxxed for them. (But some would be a threat for some, or a perceived threat, and people must be free to choose or refuse them.)

But they're not going to do it on their own if they are so fearful and unreflexive, I think it's what we need to do and put segments of it in front of them. Constantly. I think all of us would do better to be more nuanced. There are great differences in every factor: how deadly the diseases are, how common they are or would be if vaccine uptake dropped, how dangerous each vaccine is, how effective the vaccines are. I told Mike Stevens the other day that I had made another donation to UNHCR to help Mosul refugees. He said he was delighted to hear it, but was I aware that a lot of the money went to providing vaccines for the children? I said I was, but I would prefer it all went to food, blankets, tents, heaters, etc. And then I started thinking that life in a crowded refugee camp of cold, undernourished people was replicating the slums described in Dr. Humphries" Dissolving Illusions. Crowded slums of cold, malnourished factory workers which saw hundreds of thousands killed every year by contagious diseases rare now in developed countries. Or like in the collapsed Soviet Union, where diphtheria epidemics resurged, killing many thousands in a country that would not have had them had they still been functioning societies with citizens with sufficient food and shelter. I was horrified by the suffering Humphries described. And I thought that maybe it WOULD be an appropriate intervention to vaccinate the camp residents for the most dangerous threats.

I am against bloc thinking. I think if we show we've given thought to all the many contingencies, we would be more persuasive when dealing with fearful people who are not well-informed at all, but we have to show that we're also aware of how bad many of the VPDs used to be, how many they killed, and that we are holding that truth in our hearts but many others as well.



I think there are a lot of people who can't or won't believe that what they have learned about vaccines is wrong, especially polio, because of the fear that was implanted during the polio years which has been passed down from generation to generation. Fear of polio was so great in those days that tens of thousands of parents willingly lined up their children like cattle to be shot with an experimental vaccine. Fear of disease, disability and death controlled the masses then and still does today.
"Aug. 9, 1959. During the eight-hour program, about 14,000 from Evansville and surrounding communities received shots"

"If for every time we said "here is a study showing vaccines are linked to autism" we said: rates of paralysis have in fact *increased* since the polio vaccine" this entire paradigm would be obliterated"

I'm sure they would argue that these cases of paralysis were not caused by polio because the polio vaccines eradicated polio.

From The Emotion Code by Dr Bradley Nelson:

"We are fed perspectives, opinions, prejudices, traditions,
theories, facts, and doctrines. We hope that what we
have learned is based in truth. We go to school to learn
the “facts” about nature, science and the history of
the world. By the time we reach adulthood, our ideas
about the world are essentially in place.

When new information comes along, it is only natural
that our minds are slow to accept and understand things
that don't fit with previously learned information. It
might be hard to accept if the new information requires
us to make some changes in our thinking, especially if
it goes against what we've been taught. "

Jonathan Rose

Here's the Economist/YouGov poll (scroll to p. 46):

Overall, 31% of American adults believe that vaccines cause autism. The proportion rises to 36% among twentysomethings and a staggering 44% among African-Americans (who remember the Tuskegee Experiment). Contrary to the media-promoted caricature of vaccine skeptics as affluent snobs, belief in a vaccine-autism link is lowest in high-income groups (23%) and highest in low-income groups (34%).

Well, we are making progress.


Imagine where we would be if instead of focusing on just on the (very real) link between vaccines and autism for the past three decades we had been explaining that every single last one of them was utterly worthless and where they appear to have worked it is because - and only because - the doctors have renamed (differentially diagnosed) these diseases because they didn't like the idea that vaccinated people could still get the disease.

If for every time we said "here is a study showing vaccines are linked to autism" we said: "rates of paralysis have in fact *increased* since the polio vaccine" this entire paradigm would be obliterated.

Tim Lundeen

@Aimee Doyle

All politicians are bought, it is just a question of where they see the biggest return.

In CA with SB277 mandating full vaccination to attend school, most Democrats voted for and most Republicans against -- I think because the Republicans are looking for issues to move voters into their column. (But it could be from a genuine belief in informed consent; I might be too cynical.)

But congressional Republicans have no incentives like this -- they are already the majority, and they didn't run on a platform of questioning vaccines, and they get plenty of pharma money. So their bread is still buttered most on the pro-pharma side.

Trump is well aware that vaccines cause autism, and his pick for HHS, Tom Price, is promising. If we get a CDC director who wants to clean up the CDC, then we will see some real fireworks. For example, if the CDC director even just allows Dr Thompson to testify under oath, that should be hard for even the old media channels to ignore... But a director who wants to clean those stables could do amazing things! I have mostly stopped watching the news post-election, except for this: what Price will do, who will head the CDC, etc!

Bob Moffit

I apologize .. I thought 28% of Democrats .. and .. 29% of Republicans .. were "elected officials" .. not simply members of the "electorate".

My bad .. yet .. none-the-less .. as Anne says .. "30% of ALL VOTERS .. (the "electorate) .. is .. "jaw-dropping".

Anne McElroy Dachel

Cait from Canada....
You're absolutely right. If we round that to 30 percent of voters overall, it's jawdropping. This despite two decades of denial, denial, denial from doctors, health officials and the media.

And every article from Age of Autism on Google News, along with all the comments people post, educate thousands more!

Anne Dachel, Media

Cait from Canada

Bob: If we combine 28% of Democrats and 29% of Republicans, we get roughly 28-29% of the American electorate, not 50% of elected politicians.

28-29% is still quite high, given the virtual media blackout on evidence that vaccines can cause autism.

Aimee Doyle

I have questions I'd really like to get answers to...

The House Government Oversight committee is chaired by Republicans and has a Republican majority. Why haven't they held hearings on the vaccine-autism issues?

Bill Posey is a House Republican, in a House that is dominated by Republicans. He has had William Thompson's whistleblower documents for a couple of years - why hasn't he passed them on to colleagues - or better yet, the Republicans who chair the oversight committee? If he has, why haven't his fellow House members done anything with the information? Or why hasn't a copy been passed on to the media? Couldn't he hold a press conference (for print, TV,and Internet media) and pass out packages of documents? Couldn't they be leaked to Wikileaks?

Why haven't Republicans in the Senate used their influence on this matter? Certainly some of them are open to these concerns from their constituents.

I have certainly contacted (phoned, emailed, faxed - you name it) on the vaccine-autism issue - my House representative and Senators here in Maryland - without any discernible result. Democrats can certainly take plenty of blame on the vaccine-autism issue - but I think Republicans could also take a look at how they are not improving the situation.

And if everyone in Congress is owned by Pharma, then perhaps we ought to come up with a strategy to fight Pharma directly.

William H. Gaunt

The elephant in the living room is Donald Trump. If he chooses to address this issue, we could see dramatic changes. He has met with Andrew Wakefield, Mark Blaxill, and others from our community. He said in that meeting that he will fix this problem. I believe he will do what he says.

Bob Moffit

"Despite broad disagreements on politically relevant conspiracy theories, Democrats and Republicans did find an issue to unite them — vaccines and autism. The poll found that 28 percent of Democrats believe 'vaccines have been shown to cause autism' and 29 percent of Republicans do, too."

Thanks Anne ... imagine that .. combine BOTH 28% of Democrats and 29% of Republicans .. and .. it appears to me .. that 50% of elected politicians in Washington D.C. .. "believe vaccines have been shown to cause autism'.

I think it safe to assume those elected officials have reached their beliefs regarding vaccines causing autism .. after personally experiencing the dramatic increase in parents in their districts who have contacted them and reported what happened to their perfectly healthy child AFTER receiving recommended and approved vaccines.

Which raises the obvious question: Why have those elected officials .. who NOW believe vaccines have "caused" autism .. remain SILENT???

"Believing" something harmful is occurring .. and .. remaining SILENT as it continues to do extraordinary harm to our most precious resource .. our children .. in my humble opinion .. is the same callous indifference as watching a child playing with a loaded firearm .. and .. saying NOTHING TO PREVENT THE TRAGEDY THAT IS SURE TO OCCUR.

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.)