Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[Lighthouse]

The point is, life is risky. You’re taking a risk by walking down your stairs in the morning, by walking outside, by driving to work, etc. Almost 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year, while many tens of millions more are injured or disabled. But we all get into our cars and drive to work every day. We do that because we feel that the benefits outweigh the costs, even though we could easily lose our lives. It almost defies common sense, doesn’t it?

Kids aren’t allowed to bring peanut butter to school if even one child in the whole school is allergic to peanuts. Why? Because the cost of that one child potentially losing his/her life outweighs the benefit of the rest of the children being allowed to enjoy peanut butter sandwiches.

The benefits of mass vaccination outweigh the costs of not vaccinating, given that millions of lives are saved by those vaccines and diseases that have been known to cause mass human suffering can be virtually wiped out. Herd immunity works. There can be some very negative side effects for some people, nobody denies that. But incidences of such are quite rare. Vaccines help vastly more people than they hurt.



Pouring billions of dollars into vaccines in the Third World saves millions of lives every year. That is demonstrable. Pouring money into better sanitation is also a worthy goal.



Who are “they?” and why do you think they’re talking to me?



Yes, one can do their own unbiased research if one looks for said research on academic and scientific sites. If one does so, one will find a plethora of evidence indicating that vaccines have caused far more good than harm.



Who said we are free of diseases? I said we are free of many of the diseases we have been vaccinating against for many years.

Again, where do you get that number from?




Again, you misquote me. I didn’t say children don’t die. I said “gone are the days when large amounts of children died before the age of 5 from preventable or curable illnesses.” According to the CDC the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% from 1915 to 1997.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

Depending on what part of the world we’re talking about, up until about the second half of the 19th century, anywhere from a quarter to one third of children died before the age of five.
http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-death/trends-in-death
http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(10)1175.pdf
https://opentextbc.ca/preconfederation/chapter/childhood-in-a-dangerous-time/




That is why it’s important for a large amount of the population to be vaccinated; to protect the unprotected and under-protected from contracting the diseases.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think your logic makes very much sense. 80-90% Effectiveness is preferential to 0% effectiveness (from not being vaccinated), is it not? I mean, using your line of reasoning, people shouldn’t bother using condoms given that they’re only effective 98% of the time.

I think I’ve already explained why I feel it’s irresponsible not to vaccinate.



Is there anyone who hasn’t heard of booster shots?

Why do you keep talking about placebo?

I’ve already addressed your “shedding” claim.

I don’t know where you’re pulling this common sense from, but it isn’t making much sense. There’s no mental indoctrination here.

You're risky stuff about life, while true... contradicts your logic. One has a greater chance of dying or developing side effects, potential mid-long term illnesses from a vac than getting a disease, in which can easily and naturally be fought off and becoming naturally immune lifelong needing no vaccines. I don't really understand the fear you have for diseases that have assenuated and in which the vast majority don't even die and are easily treated with developing lifelong immunity from the real thing. If life is so risky in every possible aspect, why vaccinate when there are endless amounts of other ways more common to die than getting a disease that has a vaccine for it? Why get a vaccine if it does not stop the spreading, does not prevent one from getting the disease, kills and harms, is unknown the near-mid-long term effects?

These remarks are mostly double minded and hypocritical. You bring the peanut butter up and how 1 life saved outweighs.
Can't bring peanut butter to school but can bring live virus's to school. 0 measles deaths in US past 10 years and over 100 deaths from measles vac. The list is endless. Please stop preaching one life saved outweighs. I've already pointed out the hypocrisy of using your immune deficient niece as an example yet preach mass vaccination in every other immune deficient child in third world countries. 1 life saved does not matter to you. Why not be honest and come out and say that you're fine and willing to kill and harm many for your faith of the greater good? Why not be honest and say that everyone is an expendable statistic for the greater good?

Another lie, vaccines do not stop the spread of disease. Vaccines do not stop people from being fully vaccinated and getting the disease. Live virus's are brought to school by those vaccinated and are around the immune-deficient regularly. I keep bringing up placebo for this very reason. Maybe if you believe something enough, it is true. Maybe not.

Common sense would indicate that something "alleged" 80-90% effective for a few years would not indicate that it is more effective than something 0%. You are failing to note that the human body has natural defenses or are you saying the human body is 0% naturally effective? That was never the point, the point was discussing the concept of herd immunity. Not correlating it to something completely different. Don't steer off the topic. Nice attempt though.

How long are booster shots allegedly effective for? Why do you need a booster shot in the first place? What will you do when that booster wears off?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're risky stuff about life, while true... contradicts your logic. One has a greater chance of dying or developing side effects, potential mid-long term illnesses from a vac than getting a disease, in which can easily and naturally be fought off and becoming naturally immune lifelong needing no vaccines.

No, they don’t. History and the evidence don’t bear any of that out. Quite the contrary, as already discussed. Again, you’re ignoring my responses and just making the same claims again.

You're

I don't really understand the fear you have for diseases that have assenuated and in which the vast majority don't even die and are easily treated with developing lifelong immunity from the real thing.

We got rid of these diseases with vaccination programs. I have no idea how anyone could say otherwise. Is there no amount of evidence that will convince you of that?

If life is so risky in every possible aspect, why vaccinate when there are endless amounts of other ways more common to die than getting a disease that has a vaccine for it? Why get a vaccine if it does not stop the spreading, does not prevent one from getting the disease, kills and harms, is unknown the near-mid-long term effects?

I find this to be a very strange question. Why mitigate the risk of some things when there are other things that are also risky? Well, because reducing risk of illness and/or death wherever possible is generally a good thing. Why do we wear seatbelts when people will still die in car crashes? I think the answer is obvious.

Vaccines do help to stop the spread of disease. Vaccines have been studied and scrutinized extensively for many years. And severe side effects are rare. Again, I demonstrated this for you. Is there no amount of evidence that will convince you?

These remarks are mostly double minded and hypocritical. You bring the peanut butter up and how 1 life saved outweighs

Please try to understand the greater point I was making. I think I made it pretty clear. The collective actions of a group can save lives, and a cost-benefit ratio needs to be taken into consideration.

Can't bring peanut butter to school but can bring live virus's to school.

Once again, the only vaccine shown to shed is one that is no longer used in North America.

0 measles deaths in US past 10 years and over 100 deaths from measles vac

Nope.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmrdeaths.asp

The list is endless.

Well, you gave me one that was false. Anything else on that list?

Please stop preaching one life saved outweighs. I've already pointed out the hypocrisy of using your immune deficient niece as an example yet preach mass vaccination in every other immune deficient child in third world countries. 1 life saved does not matter to you.

There is no hypocrisy that you were able to point out, as far as I can see. Putting words in my mouth won’t help you either. I never “preached” about vaccinating immune deficient children in third world countries.

Herd immunity helps my niece, and it helps everyone else in the world as well. Including you.

Why not be honest and come out and say that you're fine and willing to kill and harm many for your faith of the greater good? Why not be honest and say that everyone is an expendable statistic for the greater good?

That sounds like an admission you should be making, given your stance on vaccines.

Another lie, vaccines do not stop the spread of disease. Vaccines do not stop people from being fully vaccinated and getting the disease. Live virus's are brought to school by those vaccinated and are around the immune-deficient regularly. I keep bringing up placebo for this very reason. Maybe if you believe something enough, it is true. Maybe not.

Yes it does stop the spread of disease, which I demonstrated in the very post you were responding to. Please pay closer attention.

I’ve addressed your fallacious shedding claim numerous times now. I’m not sure why you’re still repeating it at this point.

Could you explain what you think placebo has to do with this?

Common sense would indicate that something "alleged" 80-90% effective for a few years would not indicate that it is more effective than something 0%.

That’s not common sense. I don’t know what that is.

You are failing to note that the human body has natural defenses or are you saying the human body is 0% naturally effective? That was never the point, the point was discussing the concept of herd immunity. Not correlating it to something completely different. Don't steer off the topic. Nice attempt though.

Vaccines build up the body’s natural defenses by preparing it to fight disease.

Please look up the statistics for incidence rates of the diseases we vaccinate for, prior to and after the we started vaccinating.

How long are booster shots allegedly effective for? Why do you need a booster shot in the first place? What will you do when that booster wears off?

It depends on what vaccine you are talking about. Whooping cough, for example, only requires one booster shot. Booster shots allow the body to keep a memory of the virus so that the immune response may recognize it and fight it off. (I think someone else in the thread mentioned this.)

 

[Lighthouse]

No, they don’t. History and the evidence don’t bear any of that out. Quite the contrary, as already discussed. Again, you’re ignoring my responses and just making the same claims again.

We got rid of these diseases with vaccination programs. I have no idea how anyone could say otherwise. Is there no amount of evidence that will convince you of that?



I find this to be a very strange question. Why mitigate the risk of some things when there are other things that are also risky? Well, because reducing risk of illness and/or death wherever possible is generally a good thing. Why do we wear seatbelts when people will still die in car crashes? I think the answer is obvious.

Vaccines do help to stop the spread of disease. Vaccines have been studied and scrutinized extensively for many years. And severe side effects are rare. Again, I demonstrated this for you. Is there no amount of evidence that will convince you?



Please try to understand the greater point I was making. I think I made it pretty clear. The collective actions of a group can save lives, and a cost-benefit ratio needs to be taken into consideration.



Once again, the only vaccine shown to shed is one that is no longer used in North America.



Nope.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmrdeaths.asp



Well, you gave me one that was false. Anything else on that list?



There is no hypocrisy that you were able to point out, as far as I can see. Putting words in my mouth won’t help you either. I never “preached” about vaccinating immune deficient children in third world countries.

Herd immunity helps my niece, and it helps everyone else in the world as well. Including you.



That sounds like an admission you should be making, given your stance on vaccines.



Yes it does stop the spread of disease, which I demonstrated in the very post you were responding to. Please pay closer attention.

I’ve addressed your fallacious shedding claim numerous times now. I’m not sure why you’re still repeating it at this point.

Could you explain what you think placebo has to do with this?



That’s not common sense. I don’t know what that is.

Vaccines build up the body’s natural defenses by preparing it to fight disease.

Please look up the statistics for incidence rates of the diseases we vaccinate for, prior to and after the we started vaccinating.



It depends on what vaccine you are talking about. Whooping cough, for example, only requires one booster shot. Booster shots allow the body to keep a memory of the virus so that the immune response may recognize it and fight it off. (I think someone else in the thread mentioned this.)

Alright bud, let's be fair here. I said that a vaccinated person does not "stop" the spread of diseases and that vaccines do not "stop" the spread of diseases in regards to the herd immunology theory. If you want to discuss reduction, that is fine but there is no denying the words "stop" and "reduce" are separate. You aren't proving "stop" by posting "reduce" links. Millions of things "reduce" the spread of infectious disease, the vaccine agenda will have you see that it's all about the vaccinations that do everything. I know, I know... vaccines have done everything. Vaccines did it. Please play closer attention.
A vaccinated person can spread a disease just as easily as anyone else, if not more due to having live virus's in their system from a few vacs.

The CDC made the claim and it was buried due to her dying of pneumonia. Her family said she was vaccinated. Still, 1 death and they list drug use and poor health to begin with. You're right though, it wasn't 10 years... it was more like 11 years without a recorded death in the US until that one. The over 100 can be seen on the money paid out under reasoning why which is released monthly I believe. A look at the over 100 deaths the past 10years dying from the vac compared to 1(not 0) can be seen viewing the compensation information.

Whooping cough requires one booster vaccine that become null after a year or two. Then what? Are you no longer part of the flock and will consider yourself dangerous and irresponsible too? What's with this memory imprint? That is a lie of wishful thinking. If there is already memory, there should be no need for a booster.

I'd much rather get measles naturally, the stupendously low chance that it is, recover just fine and have natural lifelong immunity.

Side effects being as rare as you say they are is also a lie. I can take any 10 children to be vaccinated and I guarantee that most if not all will have a side effect or multiple. Not to mention the many unknowns. Please stop preaching this as settled. That is far from the truth.

You have already shown how VAERS is faulty. 50,000 stats could be recorded with symptoms of "possible" whooping cough per say yet 5 of those 50,000 patients are diagnosed with whooping cough and the CDC will use the 50,000 number rather than the honest 5. This is used to magnify fear as selling propaganda.
You keep trying to promote science with a glorified conflict of interest. The sound science is where there is no conflict of interest.

Yes, I'm afraid you've stated numerous times that mass vaccinating third world countries is good and should be done while failing to admit they are malnutritioned and already have immune deficiencies. The WHO has already addressed this for you with all of the deaths they have caused by their unjust and unethical trials in Africa by stating vaccines are safe, it was the child's malnutrition that caused their death.

 

[Lighthouse]

You completely missed the point and/or ignored most of my post to just repeat the same things yet again.

I'll explain it again later when I have more time.

I have to say, your assertions that you alone know the "truth," that others aren't capable of doing proper research (you have no idea who you're talking to) and alluding to conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific ideas give the impression that you believe whatever you read on the internet.

There are many who are aware of the truth. It honestly isn't hard to find without the Internet or "scientific evidence." It's the herd that is immune to the truth.
You are believing what you read on the Internet from the CDC and everything else where there is strong conflict of interest. Perhaps you should research conflict of interest and science/pseudoscience.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are many who are aware of the truth. It honestly isn't hard to find without the Internet or "scientific evidence." It's the herd that is immune to the truth.
You are believing what you read on the Internet from the CDC and everything else where there is strong conflict of interest. Perhaps you should research conflict of interest and science/pseudoscience.

I'm well educated on the subject of scientific research, actually. You'll notice that I provide scientific research to back up my claims and to counter your points. But thanks for the advice.

Don't forget, you're the one who cited the CDC as an authority on the subject you were talking about. It doesn't make much sense to condemn them now, after having done that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Alright bud, let's be fair here. I said that a vaccinated person does not "stop" the spread of diseases and that vaccines do not "stop" the spread of diseases in regards to the herd immunology theory. If you want to discuss reduction, that is fine but there is no denying the words "stop" and "reduce" are separate. You aren't proving "stop" by posting "reduce" links. Millions of things "reduce" the spread of infectious disease, the vaccine agenda will have you see that it's all about the vaccinations that do everything. I know, I know... vaccines have done everything. Vaccines did it. Please play closer attention.
A vaccinated person can spread a disease just as easily as anyone else, if not more due to having live virus's in their system from a few vacs.

The CDC made the claim and it was buried due to her dying of pneumonia. Her family said she was vaccinated. Still, 1 death and they list drug use and poor health to begin with. You're right though, it wasn't 10 years... it was more like 11 years without a recorded death in the US until that one. The over 100 can be seen on the money paid out under reasoning why which is released monthly I believe. A look at the over 100 deaths the past 10years dying from the vac compared to 1(not 0) can be seen viewing the compensation information.

Whooping cough requires one booster vaccine that become null after a year or two. Then what? Are you no longer part of the flock and will consider yourself dangerous and irresponsible too? What's with this memory imprint? That is a lie of wishful thinking. If there is already memory, there should be no need for a booster.

I'd much rather get measles naturally, the stupendously low chance that it is, recover just fine and have natural lifelong immunity.

Side effects being as rare as you say they are is also a lie. I can take any 10 children to be vaccinated and I guarantee that most if not all will have a side effect or multiple. Not to mention the many unknowns. Please stop preaching this as settled. That is far from the truth.

You have already shown how VAERS is faulty. 50,000 stats could be recorded with symptoms of "possible" whooping cough per say yet 5 of those 50,000 patients are diagnosed with whooping cough and the CDC will use the 50,000 number rather than the honest 5. This is used to magnify fear as selling propaganda.
You keep trying to promote science with a glorified conflict of interest. The sound science is where there is no conflict of interest.

Yes, I'm afraid you've stated numerous times that mass vaccinating third world countries is good and should be done while failing to admit they are malnutritioned and already have immune deficiencies. The WHO has already addressed this for you with all of the deaths they have caused by their unjust and unethical trials in Africa by stating vaccines are safe, it was the child's malnutrition that caused their death.

All you've done is repeat yourself and cite conspiracy theories here. I have already addressed almost everything you've said.

FYI: You can thank vaccines for your "stupendously low chance" of contracting the measles.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm well educated on the subject of scientific research, actually. You'll notice that I provide scientific research to back up my claims and to counter your points. But thanks for the advice.

Don't forget, you're the one who cited the CDC as an authority on the subject you were talking about. It doesn't make much sense to condemn them now, after having done that.

That is not scientific research you post. It is mostly graphs and stats that list no sources other the conflict of interest CDC.

 

[Lighthouse]

All you've done is repeat yourself and cite conspiracy theories here. I have already addressed almost everything you've said.

FYI: You can thank vaccines for your "stupendously low chance" of contracting the measles.

You haven't addressed anything. You address
everything with red herrings. Everything you cannot answer or have no answer to, you type meaningless word salads such as this message I'm responding to.

Give sound science where there is no conflict of interest, please.

 

[Ana.J]

Hi everyone,
it's recently come to my attention that a number of common vaccinations contain cells from aborted fetuses. But I'm also aware that most people, including religious people, get vaccinated. I have a Christin friend who is a Pharmacist and who is anti-vax specifically because of this ingredient. But how common is it for religious people who are against abortion to get themselves and their children vaccinated?

Are you one of these people or are you a religious person who avoids vaccination for religious reasons?

I am not religious, but I have done a research on vaccination and I know some shocking facts that made me refuse vaccination for good. Check this article to begin with...

 

[Lighthouse]

I am not religious, but I have done a research on vaccination and I know some shocking facts that made me refuse vaccination for good. Check this article to begin with...

It's pretty sad, especially since it's mostly the children and already frail elderly getting mass pumped with this stuff with very high overwhelming limits of many substances greatly exceededing even what the FDA says. Children are being preyed upon by mankind's lack of knowledge and research in its infant stages of molecular biology of cells/diseases, and immunology all while many are dancing to the bank and psychologically infecting minds also with their pseudoscientific propaganda. Brainwashing at its finest.

A list of ingredients can be found on the CDC and manufacturer's websites(while they are admitting there may be some not listed.)

 

[Ana.J]

It's pretty sad, especially since it's mostly the children and already frail elderly getting mass pumped with this stuff with very high overwhelming limits of many substances greatly exceededing even what the FDA says. Children are being preyed upon by mankind's lack of knowledge and research in its infant stages of molecular biology of cells/diseases, and immunology all while many are dancing to the bank and psychologically infecting minds also with their pseudoscientific propaganda. Brainwashing at its finest.

A list of ingredients can be found on the CDC and manufacturer's websites(while they are admitting there may be some not listed.)

The problem is that they manipulate our fears to make us make the shots that kill us gradually. I'm trying to spread the word about vaccination to the best of my ability and educate people on the toxic ingredients. The most important thing is to persuade them to stop vaccinating their children!

 

[Lighthouse]

The problem is that they manipulate our fears to make us make the shots that kill us gradually. I'm trying to spread the word about vaccination to the best of my ability and educate people on the toxic ingredients. The most important thing is to persuade them to stop vaccinating their children!

That is great. There are still good people left that actually care for others. That is their biggest fear, the wise and awake spreading truth and education because their bank accounts will become smaller.

One minor measles outbreak in which none die or are even badly harmed is all it takes to spread fear like its the end of the world and more hate for the healthy unvaccinated all for their own gain and interest. Quite sad. They won't get away with it for too much longer, as their empire will come crashing down. More and more people are becoming awake, can't even afford their junk, and the truth about all the harm they've caused will come to light.
"What will happen if we stop vaccinating they ask?" Well, the end of the world pretty much they say. Really, the end to many deaths/diseases and their bankroll.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not scientific research you post. It is mostly graphs and stats that list no sources other the conflict of interest CDC.

Then it's clear that you don't know what scientific research is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You haven't addressed anything. You address
everything with red herrings. Everything you cannot answer or have no answer to, you type meaningless word salads such as this message I'm responding to.

Give sound science where there is no conflict of interest, please.

I've responded to just about every single thing you've said in this entire thread. Please don't make things up.

I'm afraid you don't know what word salad is either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not religious, but I have done a research on vaccination and I know some shocking facts that made me refuse vaccination for good. Check this article to begin with...

Natural News is bogus. Right in that article the site claims to have carried out lab testing on a batch of flu vaccine claiming that, "outrageously high levels of neurotoxic mercury" were found
but couldn't even be bothered to post their study anywhere. That's pretty strange. They also fail to mention, in that article, that a flu vaccine that doesn't contain thimerosal is also available on demand.

Scientific or academic sites and journals are what you should be looked at, if one cares about empirical data and facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's pretty sad, especially since it's mostly the children and already frail elderly getting mass pumped with this stuff with very high overwhelming limits of many substances greatly exceededing even what the FDA says. Children are being preyed upon by mankind's lack of knowledge and research in its infant stages of molecular biology of cells/diseases, and immunology all while many are dancing to the bank and psychologically infecting minds also with their pseudoscientific propaganda. Brainwashing at its finest.

A list of ingredients can be found on the CDC and manufacturer's websites(while they are admitting there may be some not listed.)

To what are you referring? Do you have some sources for these claims?

Millions of children are, and have been, saved by vaccines all around the world for over a century now. That is a demonstrable fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The problem is that they manipulate our fears to make us make the shots that kill us gradually. I'm trying to spread the word about vaccination to the best of my ability and educate people on the toxic ingredients. The most important thing is to persuade them to stop vaccinating their children!

Again in this thread I have to ask, who are "they?" I haven't seen any answer as of yet on that one.


Kill us gradually? How come we're living longer than ever before then? How come the population of the world has exploded? That doesn't make much sense.

I don't want to live in a third world country where superstition rules over facts and evidence, where scientific evidence is ignored, and where children are injured or die from preventable illnesses, as occurred in the western world in the not to distant past, and as continues to occur in many parts of the world to this day. I'm not sure why anyone else would want that either. But that's actually what is being advocated for when one encourages people not to vaccinate. I'm not interested in traveling back in time to when human beings were worse off than they are now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is great. There are still good people left that actually care for others. That is their biggest fear, the wise and awake spreading truth and education because their bank accounts will become smaller.

One minor measles outbreak in which none die or are even badly harmed is all it takes to spread fear like its the end of the world and more hate for the healthy unvaccinated all for their own gain and interest. Quite sad. They won't get away with it for too much longer, as their empire will come crashing down. More and more people are becoming awake, can't even afford their junk, and the truth about all the harm they've caused will come to light.
"What will happen if we stop vaccinating they ask?" Well, the end of the world pretty much they say. Really, the end to many deaths/diseases and their bankroll.

People who advocate for mass vaccinations do indeed care for others. People such as myself would like to see as many people as possible living long, healthy lives. Relying on psuedoscience and misinformation won't get us there though. Never has, never will.

We need better education here in North America so that people can actually understand how science works and know how to read and understand scientific materials in order to be better educated and better informed.

 

[Lighthouse]

To what are you referring? Do you have some sources for these claims?

Millions of children are, and have been, saved by vaccines all around the world for over a century now. That is a demonstrable fact.

The FDA recommends a maximum of 4.225 mg of aluminum the first "1 YEAR" of life. Currently, the vaccination schedule offers 4.4 mg of aluminum the first "6 MONTHS" of life.
They say that breastfed babies receive 7mg of aluminum, 38mg from formula, and 138mg from soy milk. What is misleading is the absorption rate which has been thoroughly researched and is about 0.3%. In reality, children are receiving 0.021 mg from breastfeeding, 0.114 mg from formula, and 0.351 mg from soy milk. So my question is, why vaccinate more than the max amount of 1 year allowed, alone in 6 months on top of the actual needed absorption rates and inevitable environmental factors? Needless to mention, this is the current. A few years ago, the aluminum rate was immensely higher from vaccines. To their credit, they have made the effort to reduce and remove some of the harmful poison. But nevertheless millions of children were already given the immense exceeding and exposed to currently unknown early neurological developments.

If you want to talk about mercuries, the unknowns about all of the other substances... let's do it.

You keep bringing up science this science that, science research yet have failed to provide the research that the immunology of the human is complete, the biology of the human is complete, that neurology is all known, that neurology of developing children is all known, all the near-mid-long term effects of vaccinations are completely known. You can provide biased charts with no sources all you want and if you think that is scientific research, so be it. You have also failed to provide research that neurological development in children is complete, that pumping all of these:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
Into the developing bodies and brains of children is safe. Any research you provide is pseudoscience on terms of immense conflict of interest. Please provide sound science that is available and allowed to be researched by the entire scientific community.

You have failed to address all the cancers and diseases caused to test animals, why they are given to humans, and why you believe the human isn't an animal. Please provide sound research that we aren't evolved animals.

You have failed to provide research on how the natural immune system is incapable of easily fighting off these diseases, how the vast majority who developed diseases survived them easily and became life-long immune to the real thing, how this translates to passing down genetically.

Millions of children are, and have been messed up all around the world for over a century now. That is a demonstrable fact. One disease is allegedly eradicated by vaccines, thousands of more diseases arrive. As they say: "a cure for cancer or many other diseases would never be allowed, it would crumble and cripple the financial healthcare, government, and pharmaceutical system."

You keep saying "vaccines did it" to everything yet provide nothing. Saying so doesn't make it so. In fairness, you have replied to everything but with no sound research.

You still failed to provide research as to why it's okay for over 100 people to die from a measles vac and only 1 has died from measles(who was vaccinated for measles) and how it was listed as drug abuse and unhealth for contributing factors in her death. Whereas the rare cases of measles humans have got in developed countries are easily fought whether vaccinated or not. I will wait on research on why the public should fear measles should be so fearful and terrifying.

I am also waiting on research from the amount of "cases" you have used for statistics. Cases and diagnoses are very different. A common rash is reported to the CDC as a "case" of measles yet never diagnosed as measles. I'm waiting on why those massive amounts of inflated numbers exist as cases and not diagnoses. I will keep waiting for your sound, unbiased research available to the entire worldwide scientific community.

You bring up how a link "fails to mention" while never mentioning anything the CDC "fails to mention" which is an astronomical amount of "failing to mentions."

 

[Lighthouse]

People who advocate for mass vaccinations do indeed care for others. People such as myself would like to see as many people as possible living long, healthy lives. Relying on psuedoscience and misinformation won't get us there though. Never has, never will.

We need better education here in North America so that people can actually understand how science works and know how to read and understand scientific materials in order to be better educated and better informed.

You care for massive conflict of interest pseudoscience, you care for spreading lies on how complete this so-called research is, you care for condescending the healthy who don't vaccinate by calling them dangerous and irresponsible. You care for the well being of your own who are immune deficient yet not the well being of other children who are immune deficient. You care for the harm of many for the alleged greater good. You care for spreading the great unknown. You care for stripping human's of freedom and choice. You care for the unjust and enethical trials of malnutritioned human Guinea pigs in Africa and India. You care for the psychological fear imposed on society.

If you don't care for these things, elaborate on why and it's correlation to vaccines. Thanks.