Are you spouting your crap over there too? Thanks for the warning ... I'll be watching.

I said nothing about Commies - and it wasn't a link to CDC, it was a link to Mother Jones. They site all kinds of stuff, then provide their own interpretation.

Here is your clues that, while the article uses facts, it's points are all opinion:

• "major spike" - linked to another Mother Jones article spouting a lot of hyperbole and cherry-picked statistics
• "2015 might be even worse"
• A tiny, modified, and out of context quote from an authority [appeal to authority]. Actual quote: "It's only January and we have already had a very large number of measles cases. As many cases as we typically have all year in typical years. This worries me and I want to do everything possible to prevent measles from getting a foothold in the United States and becoming endemic again." Note "could get" is not something Schuchat actually said.
• Scary graphics, which apparently had issues so glaring one of them had to be revised

For Mother Jones, this article is really not bad, I don't have any real issues with it. But Mother Jones is not a trustworthy publication. Just saying.

Smallpox is still maintained in US and Russian laboratories. It was declared eradicated in 1980. The WHO wanted the last of the laboratory samples destroyed, but it has so far been delayed. Interesting history in that link.

So as long as most people are okay, just accept whatever collateral damage is caused. Sure, okay. I'm glad this "Well I'm okay so screw the rest of you" attitude isn't applied to most other government programs.

Would you support also eliminating the immunity from liability that has been granted to pharmaceutical companies for vaccines? Would you include mandates for things like Gardasil even for boys (which Merck & Co have been promoting)? Who do you hold responsible when a mandated vaccine proves to be defective (like happened with RotaShield), or has manufacturing issues that causes problems, which happens with vaccines more than any other drug). If a parent gets a vaccine for their child that causes a problem, and since you can't go after the manufacturer, would you charge the parents for endangerment then, too?

Cognitive dissonance.

MotherJones used to have journalists, but they are now nothing but a pro-progressive propaganda rag, fond of running hit pieces on anyone to the right of Mao Zedong.

Here you go.

Odd that Wakefield's co-author, accused of the same things, had his indictment reversed on appeal. Wakefield did not have malpractice insurance, and his appeal was denied.

And, of course, the oft-quoted Danish study was conducted by a researcher now under indictment for fraud: Paul Thorsen.

Ummm... no, he didn't. There were a couple of issues with the study, the primary one being that a temporal association between the administration of the vaccine and the onset of autistic enterocolitis should never have implied causality. The study was important because it identified the colon symptoms present in a subset of patients with ASD as a distinct disorder. But it was misinterpreted in the press, especially for a study where the primary findings involved only 12 patients.

The main author never signed on to the minor retraction. There was nothing close to a confession of "making the whole thing up", but some (questionable) researchers from other institutions have made that accusation.

Well that's a pretty useless statistic without also knowing how many iOS users switched to Android - isn't it? And I was not able to find any surveys that provided those numbers.

Damn you, Trident!

How so? It seems, instead, to present a counter-argument. I would refer you to the comments of Richard Horton, of the Lancet. To wit:

"But there are fair questions to be asked about the style of government and expert response to claims about the safety of MMR. Three reactions have been discernable. First, there has been an appeal to evidence. The Department of Health's www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk website contains a superb collection of materials designed to help parents make the “decision in your own time and on your own terms”. The difficulty is that in a post-BSE era, where government advice is no longer immediately taken on trust, the weight of accumulated evidence carries less force if it comes from government than it once did.

Second, public-health officials have disparaged as “poor science” evidence that appears to contradict their official message. This approach has a cost. The reason that today's retraction is partial and not total is that the discovery of a possible link between bowel disease and autism is a serious scientific idea, as recognised by the MRC,8 and one that deserves further investigation. Although dismissing the entire 1998 Lancet paper as poor science gives a clear and correct message to the public about the status of any claim regarding the safety of MMR, in scientific and clinical terms it is both wrong and damaging. The autism-bowel disease link was considered part of a series of physiological observations judged by the MRC to be “interesting and in principle worth investigating”. Subsequent research has yielded conflicting findings.13, 14 This work should be supported.

Third, there has been an effort to starve critics of legitimacy by refusing to engage them face-to-face."

There were no "lies", only misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations OUTSIDE of the scientific community, and a failure to disclose associations and funding on the part of ONE of the many researchers, which turned out to be irrelevant to any of the research conducted or findings reported.

Further, I think you would be as hard-pressed to show a direct causal link between any specific refusal of the MMR vaccine and any specific death as researchers have been to show a causal link between any specific vaccine and autistic enterocolitis.

Bullshit, bullshit