"We?" I don't believe you're in a position to speak for everyone.

Your last sentence, however, proves my point, airline traveler or not. What happened to my daughter was completely unnecessary and is the reason why I no longer drink the government Kool-Aid.

Google Hannah Poling. The government has conceded vaccines "resulted" in her autism. $23 million settlement over her lifetime. Many other cases very quietly settled. The science IS there. You just have to look beyond the conflicts of interest.

My only point was that I don't believe everything they tell me. Not after my own experience with Vioxx, and my daughter's experience with vaccines (and autism is the LEAST of her injuries). Others here posted various examples. We all have our reasons to believe the government is not being truthful. Those are mine.

I googled it. The current VICP standard is junk science and the government concession was as well. It goes to prove the point that government science is often expedient, rather than good science, but in this case, the expediency was to settle rather than to fight. The current standard on vaccines seems to be that if you can make an argument of causation, they will pay, regardless of whether that argument can be proved valid or not. I don't consider that to be scientific proof of anything.

Read the NE Journal of Medicine article for a reasoned approach to the subject.

That's a vast over simplification of Poling's case.

It's not like opting out of the full body scan is going to subject you to getting fondled by a TSA agent. But, I was kinda wondering, might a passenger, or even a TSA agent get carried away? You know: one thing leads to another (maybe a squeeze or two).

Hannah Polling didn't have autism. She doesn't now. The vaccines exacerbated a pre-existing condition she unfortunately had which resulted in a slew of maladies, some of which mirror autism.

It's also said to be likely that any high fever she experienced from an illness would've ended up with the same result.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Two things happening, one after the other, doesn't mean the first thing caused the second thing.

I'm getting off this topic now. It's way off-topic and irrelevant in this forum. For actual facts on this subject, just go here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=36

The fact is, there is without question a small risk of severe complications from these vaccines (probably not autism, though). If I thought that the NoS would be remotely as effective at preventing airplanes from being blown out of the sky as most of these vaccines are at preventing some horrible diseases, which previously maimed and killed innumerable children, my objection to NoS on health grounds would evaporate.

Privacy grounds are another matter.

Yes, it is, but those aren't my words, that's coming from the government.

Well, her doctors disagree with you. However, you could probably say that about most cases of autism. We just call it autism because of the symptoms.

Nobody knows whether or not a fever would've caused the "autism." Saying that it's "said to be likely" hardly sounds like good science to me.

I will agree that arguing about vaccines and autism is irrelevant. I'll state again that these are MY reasons for not drinking the Kool-Aid, just as others stated their reasons. I believe I've been lied to, therefore I question. That's my right and I'm exercising that right. If you disagree with my reasoning, that's just fine, but now you've brought it off topic.

Except she never had autism. She has a problem that looks similar to autism that was aggravated by vaccines. (Although, in reality, if the vaccine hadn't done it something else would have.)