Vermont House Votes To Remove Philosophical Vaccine Exemption

[proverbialwisdom]

13. Details, details... Name-calling and false memes are so much simpler.

1) Take up his challenge.

http://fox13now.com/2015/04/06/robert-f-kennedy-jr-talks-about-link-between-ingredient-in-vaccines-and-autism/

“If somebody can show me a single study, one study, if any of the doctors you’ve mentioned can show me a single study that shows that thimerosal is safe, I will go on Anderson Cooper and publicly apologize. I challenge you. Find me one study.”

~Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

2) Read the letter by Salon's founder dated 4/6/15, plus full rebuttal.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/SalonRetraction_042415.html

...My critics have widely cited the Salon retraction to discredit me and the proposition that thimerosal is a potent neurotoxin that should not be in medicines. In recent weeks, newspaper editors and television producers have cited Salon’s action as justification for their decision to not run my editorials, articles and letters to the editor or to allow me to talk about vaccine safety on the air. I now briefly review the history of Salon’s withdrawal.

<>

Salon’s founder and former editor-in-chief, David Talbot, was likewise baffled and dismayed by Salon’s actions. He explained his reaction in a letter to me on April 6, 2015:

"I was dismayed when I first heard that Salon had removed your article about the hazards of thimerosal from its web archives. As you know, I was no longer the editor of Salon when your article was published. And I am not an expert on the subject. But without taking a position on mercury preservatives in vaccines, I know enough about the debate -- and about the pharmaceutical industry's general track record on putting profits before people, as well as the compromised nature of regulatory oversight in this country when it comes to powerful industries -- to know that "disappearing" your article was not the proper decision.

I founded Salon to be a fearless and independent publication -- one that was open to a wide range of views, particularly those that were controversial or contested within the mainstream media. Removing your article from the Salon archives was a violation of that spirit and smacks of editorial cowardice. If I had been editor at the time, I would not have done so -- and I would have offered you the opportunity to debate your critics in Salon's pages.

In my day, Salon did not cave to pressure -- and we risked corporate media scorn, advertising boycotts, threats of FBI investigations by powerful members of Congress, and even bomb scares because of our rigorous independence. Throwing a writer to the wolves when the heat got too hot was never the Salon way. It pains me, now that I'm on the sidelines, to ever see Salon wilt in the face of such pressure.”