Mandatory Vaccinations

Maybe if youd provide factual evidence that vaccines were effective I might change my opinion, but even the evidence you posted on the polio vaccine is flawed:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kent.html


Also this is the statement you are referencing.

A statement that does not reference the types of vaccines and it does not mention a specific Amish group. It just says Amish and the article contradict this man's statement:

Also keep in mind that Wiznitzer is on the side of drug companies. Making them look good, especially in court, is his job. You'll need to take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially since he doesnt mention the types of vaccines or the Amish vaccine schedule for the supposed 50%.

Regarding your claim of the nasal spray, didnt you vaccine supporters say that nothing is definite? 2.5% doesnt mean ever 50th person will spread the disease. Also some people claim to have had children suffer from fevers after the vaccination: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/74518.page

And give me a reason to believe that the scientists I referenced where self serving. I already posted and referenced reasons to believe people in the CDC have reasons to support vaccines, even dangerous ones.


So the minority doesnt matter? The people that had their children die, be paralyzed or disabled permanently as a result of vaccines dont deserve justice? With all other forms of healthcare, you can sue for damages that occur to your body as a result of malpractice. Also, many drugs can be detrimental to human health, but drug companies dont go out of business from being sued. Your concern about vaccine companies is not backed by precedent in this country.
Also, I love the imaginary statistic.

because we all know that after the live virus vaccination was used, there was an epidemic of H1N1 that ravaged the country.

Oh wait, no it didn't. that article you posted was an alarmist response, and even closed with a conspiracy theory about the government. I have not heard of any reported cases of H1N1 spreading from a person given the vaccination, and any searches for it have turned up fruitless.

You are assuming a bias on one side of the argument and no bias on the other. You do not know these people. You do not know their intentions. You do not know what financial support they have, or if they have stock in any companies that could benefit from their results. Creating distrust in mainstream medicine could create room for alternate forms of medicine that they perhaps have financial backing in. Who knows, maybe they are all pure of heart, but I have my doubts.

Or these scientists could be interpretting results differently simply because they want them to support their hypothesis, even if just subconciously.

Overall, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I can research a bit into it, but I've had no formal study of vaccinations. But there are people in this thread that do know what they're talking about, and I suggest you start responding to them.