thank you!

Watched opening statement of Connecticut Public Health Commissioner and was not surprised to hear about an hour of the SAME OLD, SAME OLD statements that I have been hearing public health officials spew for 20 years .. including waving Dr Wakefield's name like the proverbial "bloody shirt" before the legislators to remind them once again that Wakefield's study was found to be a fraud and how extremely dangerous the measles ARE … not WERE … ARE.

Joined at the speakers table by other "experts" .. a lawyer, epidemiologist, expert on monitoring safety .. to answer questions posed by individual legislators .. a few who actually asked great questions which I am sure were the result of parents visiting their offices recently.

HOWEVER … THE PROBLEM IS HOW THESE SO-CALLED HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED ..

When a legislator actually asks a very incisive question of a public health "expert" .. that legislator rarely follows up with challenge to the predictable "talking point" answer .. such as when panel was asked about metals .. mercury and aluminum in vaccines .. was dismissed by expert claiming thimerosal (mercury) had been removed from vaccines even though it was never found to be a contributing factor in autism .. and .. aluminum is such a small amount in vaccines it is insignificant.

Both these statements are FALSE .. and there is widespread evidence to prove them FALSE .. unfortunately the legislator is uninformed as to those two FACTS .. so the answer stands .. unchallenged.

HOW PUBLIC HEARINGS SHOULD BE HELD

They should be conducted as though it were a criminal trial .. where the PROSECUTOR (public Health official) makes and opening statement .. which is immediately followed by the DEFENSE (parents representative) challenging just about everything said in PROSECUTOR'S OPENING STATEMENT.

An independent moderator would act as a JUDGE .. asking questions of each side .. allowing the other side immediate response to answers given .. as it is done in a criminal trial through CROSS EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS.

(Think of "testimony" given by Stanley Plotkin .. the so-called FATHER OF VACCINES .. called as an "expert" witness for a father who was suing his estranged wife .. the mother of their child she refused to vaccinate over the father's strenuous objection. Plotkin .. UNDER OATH .. was on the stand for seven hours of grueling CROSS EXAMINATION by an exceptionally well-prepared LAWYER. I suspect Plotkin will never again agree to testify as an "expert" witness in a trial again.. and I wouldn't blame him for doing so.)

This is the type of public hearing regarding mandatory vaccine policies should be subjected to .. the Legislators would play the same role as JURORS in a criminal trial … allowing the PROSECUTING PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS and the PARENTS DEFENSE REPRESENTATIVES to present their EVIDENCE through rigorous cross examination of each other. After the trial .. the JURORS (legislators) can make their verdict known to the presiding judge.

God I would love to see a real TRIAL of VACCINES … where BOTH sides can present their EVIDENCE and allow THAT EVIDENCE TO PREVAIL IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.