Some unbiased, uncensored, science would go a long ways ... and the best way to assure that is to ban people who work in an industry from regulating it. Weld the revolving door shut.

Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E. | Science Adviser, Focus For Health

Dr. William Thompson, senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) contacted me during 2013 and 2014 and shared many issues regarding fraud and malfeasance in the CDC, specifically regarding the link between neurodevelopmental disorders and childhood vaccines. Dr. Thompson and I spoke on the phone more than 40 times over a 10 month period and he shared thousands of pages of CDC documents with me. Eventually, Dr. Thompson turned this information over to Congress via Rep. Bill Posey of Florida. Among the issues discussed in the phone conversations were lies told to the public by the CDC regarding the link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders (including autism) as well as the links between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American males and the MMR vaccine and “isolated” autism. Isolated autism is the term coined by CDC researchers referring to all children who received an autism diagnosis without additional diagnoses of mental retardation, cerebral palsy, visual impairment or hearing impairment.
1. CDC scientists colluded to cover up a relationship between the timing of the MMR vaccine and autism in African Americans that was first discovered in November of 2001. Rather than reporting the results to the public, all data regarding this relationship were destroyed at a secret meeting held some time in August/September of 2002. This fact has been affirmed via an affidavit given by Dr. Thompson to Rep. Bill Posey in September, 2014.
2. Dr. Thompson attempted to warn the CDC Director at the time, Dr. Julie Gerberding, regarding this relationship, prior to the February 2004 Institute of Medicine meeting on vaccines and autism. Rather than allowing Dr. Thompson to present the information at this meeting, Dr. Gerberding replaced him as a speaker with Dr. Frank Destefano, current director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, where he presented fraudulent results regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Dr. Thompson was put on administrative leave and was threatened that he would be fired due to “insubordination.”
3. When Dr. Thompson attempted to leave the CDC later that same year, he was given a $24,000 retention bonus. Dr. Thompson’s impression of the timing of this bonus, in light of disciplinary actions taken against him earlier that year, is that CDC officials were “buying his silence” through controlling his actions as a CDC employee.
4. Dr. Thompson has published two papers linking thimerosal exposure in infant vaccines to tics in boys (Thompson et al. 2007 and Barile et al. 2012). CDC fraudulently maintains on their website that “There is no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.” (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/conc.... The tic result was also affirmed in the earlier CDC publication by Verstraeten et al. (2003) and the Andrews et al. (2004) publication.
5. CDC pressured Dr. Thompson to downplay the tic result of his analysis in his 2007 paper. He was instructed to deemphasize the tic result by the CDC’s Chief Science Officer, Dr. Tanja Popovic, by emphasizing that the “major finding of the study” was “there is NO associations (sic) of thimerosal exposure with the great majority of the outcomes.” Dr. Popovic also instructed Dr. Thompson to interpret any negative outcomes as “chance findings.”
6. CDC also pressured Dr. Thompson to withhold publication of his 2012 paper which reported a relationship between thimerosal and tics. Dr. Ed Travathan, head of the CDC’s National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, stated in an April 27, 2009 memo to him that the analysis was sound except for the tic results and that they should be omitted from the publication. Since the tic result was the only result that had a consistent negative relationship with thimerosal exposure, it seemed that Dr. Thompson’s superiors were specifically concerned that thimerosal’s safety and use not be questioned. As an epidemiologist, Dr. Thompson was justifiably concerned and critical of the CDC’s action to approve the paper for publication only after the CDC took the extraordinary step of adding an expert in tics to water down the paper to state, “This finding should be interpreted with caution due to limitations in the measurement of tics and the limited biological plausibility regarding a causal relationship.” From https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-bri...

To me its less a matter of effectiveness or not, the jury is still out for a % of people anyway.
I think no one should be able to force anything into anyone else's body.
I had no choice but to take shots in NY and I'm fine. Still the idea of how government is today and how screwed up corporations are in search of profit and power makes me far less trusting to blindly allow an unknown cocktail into my body. Look how our food additives are impacting our bodies.

Do you really believe that vaccination is ineffective? What percentage of modern medicine do you believe to fall under that allopathic pseudo-term?

In my case, after as much investigating as I could muster, I believed that most of the evidence was on the side of doing the vaccination. I had my kids vaccinated.No harm done - not sure if any good was done either.I am against the government compelling me to do anything, and I also recognize there are certain things that should be obeyed for the sake of the health and well-being of the population.The only thing that would enable parents and others to make a good decision would be if it could be proved beyond any doubt that vaccinations work or devise a test where some people could be harmed by vaccinations and therefore are excused from being subjected to them.

In many states, the court automatically gives total custody to the mother and dad is lucky to get visitation rights. It's not clear here how the mother got custody; there my have been no thinking involved.

Beware the "experts" (appeal to authority).

Correct. Everyone's acting like this is about the Government just randomly forcing someone to vaccinate their kid.

The lady had a divorce agreement with her husband that she vaccinate the kid. She went against this legally binding agreement. She got arrested (for contempt), THEN the news media got involved. Lastly, the kid was vaccinated in his father's care.

So it looks like the government just randomly took an unvaccinated child, arrested the mother, and forced vaccinations on the kid.

A personal friend took their normal, happy & healthy 18-month old son for a vaccination and the kid has been severely autistic ever since. Dealing with the child's needs has all but wrecked the family, emotionally and financially. Good thing it takes a village to raise a child.

"The father, in this instance, must have had some degree of shortcoming "
Courts regularly decide in favor of the mother over the father without any specific reason. They use traditional roles to judge against fathers and use more contemporary gender roles (aka feminist rubbish) to also judge against fathers (and all men in general.)
In this case the court reversed its decision in favor of the father only because it has an agenda of using government force when anyone has an independent thought that disagrees with being a slave to government dictates.

Even though vaccinations have proven effective it is still not the purview of the state to demand them. The argument put forth sometimes is to protect other children from the one who has not been vaccinated. If the vaccinations work properly then even if one person who chose not to use them will pose no threat because the others are vaccinated so I do not agree with mandatory control from the state. However, it is correctly stated that once she invited the state into her life and agreed to abide by its dictate she had lost the right to control her life and her child's. Do not play loosely with the state, they use violence to ensure their dictates are followed.

"because of irresponsible parents that probably use this as a weapon against the other."
Yes I see two important but unrelated issues: "primary" custody and healthcare decisions.

Custody: AJ says in a divorce situation one parent should have full custody and the second should have none. Maybe the second could have "placement" but not "custody". I can see it this way, or I could see the court trying to give one parent "secondary" custody and then mediating disputes like this. I don't find either one appalling. It's a Kobiashi Maru test.

Healthcare: I know what the science says about vaccines savings lives, even of others through herd immunity, but I also respect people's right to be what I consider stupid. At some point you have to draw the line where they're putting other people in too much peril. Obviously if you're driving like a maniac, wasted on alcohol or firing a gun in the direction of a densely populated neighborhood, you've crossed the line. I draw the line between these acts and not getting the recommended vaccines. It's possible, although highly unlikely, science will find there actually are some risks of vaccines to some otherwise healthy people. I get all my kids vaccines on time. We chose not to put them in a school we interviewed that had a high population of anti-vaxers. But I don't want to force the anti-vaxers to do the right thing. Someone might die or be maimed, but if we used force to stop anyone from putting others in even slightest risk, it would mean putting everyone in a bubble-wrap prison.

The court was able to impose itself here because there was a divorce and they could change custody of the child and get the father to agree. If the divorce was not there, the court would not have had such and easy time imposing itself. MORAL OF THE STORY.....If you want to have the best chances of controlling your life...DON'T INVITE THE COURT IN TO YOUR LIFE.

Sorry about this for all you people that have actually had real problems with Vaccinations...but this frigging woman has no basis for refusing to vaccinate except her feelings. Vaccinations have been proven statistically to be better than no vaccinations. It sucks when you kid gets sick from the vaccination, but go somewhere where there are no vaccinations and see how well your kid does.....not well. The mortality is incredibly much higher than where we do have vaccinations.

the actions of the government should give all who want to have children pause to think if they own so the speak all of the rights to raise and educate them (most seem to negate the responsibility).
I have both on this site and my facebook site have seen a few George carlin talks and I think we need more of his observations. is there someone in the wings to take that on.

Not a consideration, but there are too many snowflake parents with the junk science autism/vaccinations theories. If you have more than about 2-3% of kids in a school or neighborhood /church/etc the disease can be contracted and often mutate, rendering the inoculation from the rest less-effective. Suddenly we have an outbreak of polio or rubella - both easily wiped from the planet but now increasing cases in the US and the world. Now other kids die or are maimed for life because of irresponsible parents that probably use this as a weapon against the other.

Autism correlates more closely to the average aging of parents, than vaccinations.

As the parent of a child who had terrible reactions to her vaccines, and was ultimately given a waiver by her doctors... Vaccinate at your own risk.
Be careful of the LIES. The one I hate the most is that ONLY my daughter can carry a disease. NOT TRUE. the kid she caught the chicken pox from was vaccinated for it. You can still be a carrier if you have had the vaccine. Don't demonize the kids who don't get vaccinated, because they take ALL of the risks.

Any task assigned to the government has the implied authority to use any and all necessary force to complete the assignment. It is up to the citizens to decide carefully what we want to be required to do at the point of a gun. Once license has been given we must comply or retract the request. All of these actions "for the common good" have consequences so we need to be more careful in what we ask for.

Somewhat, what I actually intended to say, perhaps I did so unclearly, was that the court appointed her the primary custodial parent, thus making her the parent who legally make all decisions for this child for a reason. The father, in this instance, must have had some degree of shortcoming to have the custody awarded to his ex-wife and visitation limited as it was.

The state acted as arbiter in a domestic dispute, nothing more. Their role is, in my view, obnoxious in a private matter, but a necessary evil I suppose.Even so, aside from how to parse custody the STATE has no business in the matter, including taking a side contrary to the primary parents wishes.

A parent saying NO should be sufficient without having to explain.

I'll write what I think you're saying: The article wasn't completely clear, but the court did appoint the mother has 100% decision-maker, similar to your examples. The father technically had 0% say, according the original agreement. So a higher court may undo this decision, but they can't undo the costs to the child and mother. Even if this was an honest mistake by the court, it's part of a larger bias in favor courts interceding in family issues.

CG's Response: Yes. The article really didn't bring that out. They should just call it "custody" instead of "primary custody", or the article should explain how the name is misleading.

How about the mind their own business...Oh, forgot, the courts and the lamestream opinions do not come from a mind.

Or "Allopathic" entanglements.

A spoon full of that medicine/poison or something completely ineffective will only lead one deeper into that rabbit hole.

Pure unadulterated Fascism!

It is not the way we raised our kids.

True. There isn't enough detail in the article to determine how and why an agreement had to be made. Even so, seems strange.

If she made a deal and then broke it she brought an arbitrator into the mix. The opinion of third party rarely results in a consensus of joy.