@Aimee Doyle. I don’t know who to support either! Apparently getting money out of politics is an urgent priority.
A friend recently posted in response to a New York Times article on vaccines. I went to read the comments and was surprised to find many qualified, interesting comments about vaccine safety. One nasty reader even suggested censorship of the comments as they were turning people against vaccines! I was surprised and happy to see other views starting to circulate. I strongly encourage Age if Autism readers to post comments on the New York Times website regarding vaccine articles as a political act! Get the word out!

Bob Moffit: Thank you for your always cogent comments. It is my intention to never again vote for anyone for president; waste of ink. But I will vote for Tulsi Gabbard, the only anti-war candidate, in the primary. In 2016, I initially marked my ballot as a write-in for Dan Olmsted, then got a fresh one, and voted for Trump as our only hope to end this nightmare. In truth, it matters not who occupies the White House. Any President, while capable of doing a lot of damage, has little opportunity to improve the lives of the citizenry, and the president really isn't in charge. The permanent bureaucracy, known as the deep state, runs things, and the CIA keeps all the elected officials in line. We will not get relief from this fascist regime, except in some states, from executive, legislative, or judicial bodies. We will have to take to the streets, and take to the streets in large numbers, and with our children. I also like Laura Hayes' idea of dis-enrolling the children from school. Basic programs here are already seriously underfunded due to the rapidly increasing special ed needs, And it will get far worse in the future. Herr Pan and Herr Newsom's bill (SB 276) will drive at least 1% of children out of the schools, a huge hit to ADA (average daily attendance, the per/child funding which represents most of the revenue stream for all school districts in California). How glad I am to be retired.

@Bob -

No I'm not suggesting we champion Green Party candidates - the Green Party has no power and has never had any power - pretty much true of every third party in the US. Despite what Dr. Jill Stein said when she ran for President, even if a Green Party candidate were elected, I'm not sure that person would be able to do much about the pharma cartel and mandatory vaccination. I do like parts of the Green Party platform, particularly the environmental piece. I think the toxins in air, water, and food harm everyone (and most particularly our damaged children). But neither party that has any power is doing what needs to be done about toxins in the environment and we seem to be moving backward in that area now.

I have no idea why the Democratic Black Caucus doesn't prioritize dealing with vaccination damage in African-American children. I suspect that they, like the Democratic party, and the majority of the Republican party, are either bought or brainwashed by Pharma. After all the majority of Congress - and the White House - doesn't prioritize autism issues, despite the horrific numbers of children being affected. Hearings on the whistleblower documents might have helped open some eyes and minds - but perhaps I'm being optimistic. Whatever did Bill Posey do with those documents, anyway?

I don't know how to move forward or whom to support.

Natalie,

I looked up the Libya Water Project and found that during the civil war there in 2011, NATO bombed it because it said that missiles were fired from inside the project, and it retaliated by bombing it. You may deny that that is what happened, but from seeing films of similar actions being taken elsewhere in the ME, I saw rockets being fired into civilian areas from schools and hospitals, I would have to say that, without having been there or knowing much about it, it is credible that that is what happened. And that would mean that no one destroyed it from evil motives, but guerrillas were using it in an evil way.

I do not believe that eugenecists are controlling everything. There are a lot of wars, but there always have been, and famine and plague have always wreaked havoc, since long before the twentieth century. I don't think anyone is calling anyone a cancer upon the face of the earth, the question is what to do about human suffering which is a result of human choices (the title of Diamond's book in full is Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed).

Diamond explains at length that people in poor countries would love to enjoy the material life that we do, with refrigerators, air conditioning, cars, etc., but that it would be impossible that everyone do so: the world simply doesn't have the resources to permit that for everyone even now. And I'd have to say that, if it were put to me as to whether I'd be willing to stop using our air conditioning, heat in the winter, refrigerator, deep freeze, hot water, washing machine and drier, car, computer, etc., and mail the savings to poor families in the Third World, I'd say no. The US is self-sufficient as to oil, water, and food. And absolutely, lucky us. BUT we don't have to share everything we have equally with everyone else in the world. That's crazy. Masochistic and ultimately suicidal. If the populations in the Third World continued to be what they were in 1900, it would be easy to share with everyone and help them live a comfortable life, but, thanks to medical and food distribution, a lot of babies have survived who otherwise would not have. But not because mad scientists think that increasing the population will lead to everyone's dying. How would that work, and why? I don't think it would be appropriate to try to blame anyone for this: it was well-meant, no one wants to see people starving to death or dying of preventable diseases. But it might have been better to consider the outcomes ahead of time, try harder to keep the population increases down. If you have a lot more babies than your local habitat can support, once the foreign aid stops, you're not going to be able to support them. With predictable consequences.

Natalie,

What is fair access to resources? Those who live in and work the land in one country have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor: they are under no obligation to support populations in other lands, who have no right whatsoever to the resources of countries other than their own native land. Any donation of food or other products is a gift which should not be given when it is unwise to do so, or if the donor just does not want to do it for whatever reason. Your saying that the world right now could support the billions living in it now assumes that developed countries be willing to spend a lot of our time, resources, and labor to donate pro bonum to the hungry in the undeveloped world. That is a doubtful proposition, and it then prevents the expenditure of those resources on other activities and projects in the developed countries. You say that of course developing countries should not overpopulate to an extreme degree, but who is going to determine the measure for this, and what is anyone going to do about it when whatever measure is arrived at is surpassed? It would then be called arrogant Western interference with the life choices of the Third World population in question. And also, poor, overpopulated countries cut down their forests to get fuel and to clear spaces for expansion of their own living spaces, resulting in the starvation and extinction of many species of both plants and animals.

You say Malthus was wrong, but that is obviously not true. He said that people can easily have babies much faster than food production can be increased to feed them. That is simply and obviously true. I know many Latin American families which had five or six children. I have an Iranian and a Spanish friend who were one of ten children each. The Spanish friend's father was one of twelve children. In countries which continue to have an average of six children per family, how can you feed that many? And then in fifteen or twenty years, when each of those six children has six children, you will have increased the population by eighteen times in two generations. Has the ability of the world, even if every person in it were willing to donate nearly all of our income to feeding this 900% increase in mouths to feed, to produce food increased that much, and would we then be willing and able to continue doing the same for the following generation? There are limits, and we have reached them.

From Diamond's Collapse, p 494-6: "The world's human population is growing. More people require more food, space, water, energy, and other resources. Rates and even the direction of human population growth (4% per year or higher) in some Third World countries, low rates of growth (1% a year or less) in some First World countries such as Italy and Japan, and negative rates of growth (i.e., decreasing populations) in countries facing major public health crises, such as Russia and AIDS-affected African countries. Everybody agrees that the world population is increasing, but that its annual percentage rate of increase is not as high as it was a decade or two ago. However, there is still disagreement about whether the world's population will stabilize at some value above its present level (double the present population?), and (if so) how many years (30 years? 50 years?) it will take for population to reach that level, or whether population will continue to grow.

There is long built-in momentum to human population growth because of what is termed the 'demographic bulge' or 'population momentum,' i.e., a disproportionate number of children and young reproductive-age people in today's population, as a result of recent population growth. That is, suppose that every couple in the world decided tonight to limit themselves to two children, approximately the correct number of children to yield an unchanging population in the long run by exactly replacing their two parents who will eventually die (actually 2.1 children when one considers childless couples and children who won't marry). The world's population would nevertheless continue to increase for about 70 years, because more people today are of reproductive age or entering reproductive age than are old and post-reproductive. ..

There are many 'optimists' who argue that the world could support double its human population, and who consider only the increase in human numbers and not the average increase in per-capital impact. But I have not met anyone who seriously argues that the world could support 12 times its current impact, although an increase of that factor would result (at this time, my addition) from all Third World inhabitants adopting First World living standards. ..Even if the people of China alone achieved a First World living standard while everyone else's living standard remained constant, that would double our human impact on the world....

What will happen when it finally dawns on all those people in the Third World that current First World standards are unreachable for them, and that the First World refuses to abandon those standards for itself? Life is full of agonizing choices based on trade-offs, but that's the cruelest trade-off that we shall have to resolve: encouraging and helping all people to achieve a higher standard of living, without thereby undermining that standard through overstressing global resources.

I have described these 12 sets of problems as separate from each other. In fact, they are linked: one problem exacerbates another or makes its solution more difficult. For example, human population growth affects all 11 other problems: more people means more deforestation, more toxic chemicals, more demand for wild fish, etc. The energy problem is linked to other problems because use of fossil fuels for energy contributes heavily to greenhouse gases, the combating of soil fertility losses by using synthetic fertilizers requires energy to make the fertilizers, fossil fuel scarcity increases our interest in nuclear energy which poses potentially the biggest 'toxic' problem of all in case of an accident, and fossil fuel scarcity also makes it more expensive to solve our freshwater problems by using energy to desalinize ocean water. Depletion of fisheries and other wild food sources puts more pressure on livestock, crops, and aquaculture to replace them, thereby leading to more topsoil losses and more eutrophication from agriculture and aquaculture. Problems of deforestation, water shortage, and soil degradation in the Third World foster wars there and drive legal asylum seekers and illegal emigrants to the First World from the Third World. Our world society is presently on a non-sustainable course."

On p 313, Diamond specifically discusses Malthus, in his chapter about the genocide in Rwanda. "Modern Rwanda illustrates a case where Malthus' worst-case scenario does seem to have been right. More generally, both Malthus' supporters and his detractors could agree that population and environmental problems will ultimately get solved in one way or another: if not by pleasant means of our own choice, then by unpleasant and unchosen means, such as the ones Malthus initially envisioned."

Who would want mandates for all immunisations for all ages ? Or not give two hoots and a toss about vaccine health and safety failure in risk assessments? and heed reports of such happening?

Book The EU A Corporatist Racket . How the European Union was created by global corporatism for global corporatism By David Barnby and John Leftwich .

It is so sad maybe not surprising that the federal government will never do a vaccinated vs unvaccinated child study. We who are of the vaccine injured family and had another of God's blessings ( younger sibling) after the realization of vaccine injury have vowed never to vaccinate again. The results are beautiful a beautiful healthy intelligent child, who keeps getting perfect attendance awards and academic awards at school. In his 9 years of life my unvaccinated child has been to a doctor's office only once and that was for a daycare physical. Not good for pharma, but beautiful for us. Pharma stay the heck away from my family.

@Gary -

Yes - I do feel betrayed. By our government, state and federal. By the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, which are supposed to be about health, but instead are about profit. By the media - liberal, conservative, and alternative - print, TV, and Internet. By our society, which continues to ignore the rising rate of autism. By the neurodiversity movement, which claims to speak for all autistic people, but pretty much forgets about those at the lower end of the spectrum.

And I may feel betrayed, angry, sad, but that's nothing compared to our children who have actually suffered the worst consequences of that betrayal.

What to do.....?

Aimee Doyle: You are correct in implying that Republicans are every bit as responsible for the vaccine carnage as Democrats. We no longer have a representative government (if we ever did). It has devolved into a plutocracy, with the pharma cartel, far more dangerous than the mafia ever was, by far its most powerful member. Unelected lobbyists write many of the bills, and unelected Congressional staffers, most of the rest. The entire federal science establishment, the NIH, is fully compromised in favor of industry interests. They fund the bulk of academic research in science, and pharma funds most of the medical research. Direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs was created by executive order, by Clinton. Trump could end it tomorrow, if he wanted to, by executive order. Don't hold your breath, he won't. It is too lucrative for the elites. Tomorrow he could also direct the Secretary of HHS to design the vaccine-safety studies mandated in the NCVIA of 1986, and never carried out. He could announce from the Rose Garden that he is shocked that this has never been done, and let the American people know how important he thinks this is in Making America Great Again. Don't hold your breath, he won't. Do you feel betrayed? We all have a right to. Diabolical evil is in charge.

@Gary - You're right that neither Congress nor the White House has done anything to ease the autism epidemic or deal with vaccination issues. And you're right that Democrats in some states have been pushing to eliminate vaccine exemptions, while Republicans protest.

But I don't see that the situation is much improved at the state level. When Republicans are in control of a state governorship or a state legislature, they don't necessarily increase vaccine exemptions or deal with autism.

In Republican Arizona, Governor Ducey says he'll veto any bill that erodes vaccine coverage - even if his own party is proposing the legislation.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2019/02/28/arizona-vaccine-laws-doug-ducey

Republican controlled West Virginia is the only state that has never had a non-medical exemption.
https://theweek.com/articles/828989/virtues-west-virginias-vaccine-policy

Republican controlled Mississippi has the highest vaccination rate in the nation for school aged children, and like West Virginia, has no non-medical exemptions. Approximately 99.7% of the state's kindergartners are fully vaccinated, according to the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/30/mississippi-yes-mississippi-has-the-nations-best-child-vaccination-rate-heres-why/?utm_term=.25cf612454e9

From the same article, an interesting chart shows that of the ten states with the lowest exemption rates, seven of them are Republican controlled states.

You're right that medicine is a business, and pharmaceuticals are an even bigger business. The business of buying politicians doesn't stop at the federal level.

In the (so called) greatest democracy in the world, any adult on board with denying a child access to an education, (because of a manufactured measles crisis and pseudoscientific theory of herd immunity) unless they have been injected with the proper amount of product, has to relinquish his right to vote until he can prove the same.

Natalie,

You should read the superb book by Jared Diamond, Collapse, about what caused a number of societies to, well, collapse. He first explains the five main causes and then examines each society discussed in terms of all five, plus others, when relevant. Overpopulation is one of the five main causes, being a major contributor to the collapse of Easter Island, the Anasazi and Maya civilizations, and the Norse in Greenland. He discusses the genocide in Rwanda mostly in terms of overpopulation. As recently as the '60s, millions died in China from starvation. Millions die worldwide every year either of hunger or of diseases enabled by malnourishment. And, as in Rwanda, overpopulation leads to war, as everyone scrambles to take the resources necessary for their own survival. This cannot be blamed on anyone from outside the countries, except to the extent that vaccination campaigns and food distribution, as well as emigration, just delay the ultimate reckoning, however well-intended they may have been (or not, when big bucks are involved for the medical and food providers).

Malthus was right. Food production increases arithmetically, while population without population control measures increases geometrically, leading to starvation as Nature's ultimate population control method. I read the very depressing book Maybe One twenty years ago, and learned that technological measures to genetically increase the yield of food crops have reached their limit: the only way to further increase it would be to increase the number of fruit-bearing stalks on the plant, but this has already been taken to the point of making the whole plant keel over from the weight.

Overall, the measles vaccine saves many lives in Africa, but most of them are lives which continue to suffer from malnutrition, other diseases, overcrowding, lack of housing, safe water, and employment. And the measles vaccine prevents the immune enhancement in the 90% who survive measles even in Africa, enjoying one-fifth the mortality in subsequent years as those who do not get natural measles. The pertussis vaccine was found in the Guinea-Bissau study in 2000 to result in a net loss of lives.

I would advocate homeopathic prophylaxis in the Third World (and elsewhere) to prevent dangerous diseases, but in tandem with education about and provision of birth control. Once responsible options are available, then we have to let the chips fall where they may, as the result of free choices by free agents. But we have to stop blaming imperialism, colonialism, the US, and the military-industrial-NGO complex for everything.

Posted by: Natalie | June 20, 2019 at 09:33 AM
this is what they use Fentanyl for ! Nicely worded isn't it - they used it across the board !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) was a care pathway in the United Kingdom (excluding Wales) covering palliative care options for patients in the final days or hours of life. It was developed to help doctors and nurses provide quality end-of-life care, to transfer quality end-of-life care from the hospice to hospital setting. Now discredited, the LCP was widely abused as a 'tick box exercise', with patients being casually assessed as terminal, heavily sedated, and denied water so the diagnosis became self-fulfilling[citation needed]. Hospitals were also provided cash incentives to achieve targets for the number of patients placed on the LCP.[1]

Posted by: Rachel | June 20, 2019 at 09:15 AM

Why don't you address the Diesner DNA-RNA issue ?

"Anyone who says that the fetal DNA contaminating our vaccines is harmless either does not know anything about immunity and Toll- like receptors or they are not telling the truth."

------------------------------------------
Is this an issue you would prefer to pretend didn't exist ?
What is your position ? Do "vaccin-xterminations" cause Autism or not ?

And then there are the William Thompson malfeasance revelations ?

vaccines contain LOADS of aluminium don't they ?
Or is it just teeny weeny amounts ? and teeny weeny amounts of mercury and other sh1t

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/12/2129/htm

Aluminium in Brain Tissue in Epilepsy: A Case Report from Camelford
Matthew Mold 1, Jason Cottle 2 and Christopher Exley 1,*
The Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK
School of Medicine, David Weatherly Building, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 2 May 2019 / Accepted: 14 June 2019 / Published: 16 June 2019

Abstract: (1) Introduction: Human exposure to aluminium is a burgeoning problem. In 1988, the population of the Cornish town of Camelford was exposed to exceedingly high levels of aluminium in their potable water supply. Herein we provide evidence that aluminium played a role in the death of a Camelford resident following development of late-onset epilepsy. (2) Case summary: We have measured the aluminium content of brain tissue in this individual and demonstrated significant accumulations of aluminium in the hippocampus (4.35 (2.80) µg/g dry wt.) and the occipital lobe (2.22 (2.23) µg/g dry wt., mean, SD, n = 5), the latter being associated with abnormal calcifications. Aluminium-specific fluorescence microscopy confirmed the presence of aluminium in both of these tissues and made the consistent observation of aluminium-loaded glial cells in close proximity to aluminium-rich cell/neuronal debris. These observations support an inflammatory component in this case of late-onset epilepsy. Congo red failed to identify any amyloid deposits in any tissue while thioflavin S showed extensive extracellular and intracellular tau pathologies. (3) Discussion: We present the first data showing aluminium in brain tissue in epilepsy and suggest, in light of complementary evidence from scientific literature, the first evidence that aluminium played a role in the advent of this case of late-onset adult epilepsy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/health/vaccine-injury-claims.html
Vaccine Injury Claims Are Few and Far Between

Data from a federal program designed to compensate people harmed by vaccines shows how rare it is for someone to claim they were hurt after getting vaccinated.
--------------------------------------------------------------

But hold on, I thought they were 100% reliable NYT ?
So now these mandated concoctions does cause injury ?
And $4bn payouts doesn't sound that rare to me ?
And hardly anyone is successful in claiming because the Govt is running a cover up Genocide program !

-------------------------------------------------------------
Vaccine program goes full on into Algeria (do they have Oil ?)

https://www.huffpostmaghreb.com/entry/le-pr-grangaud-lun-des-artisans-du-programme-national-de-vaccination-en-algerie_mg_5d078a25e4b0dc17ef0d2068

And then there is the IOMs own position that vaccines cause 158 diseases :

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

Using epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence, the committee developed 158 causality conclusions and assigned each relationship between a vaccine and an adverse health problem to one of four categories of causation: