Mandatory Vaccinations

What exactly is there to prove? That a patient is a container of viruses? That transmission of said viruses does happen from person to person? That vaccinated people are still, at a low rate, subject to contracting illnesses when exposed to viruses (in this case, via non-vaccinated people)? Even if the vaccine has a 30% success rate, not taking it still means you are MORE likely to contract such disease, adding another threat the unprotected people (who are unlucky enough not to have the vaccine work for them).


Does any of your "studies" specify how much these amounts would be within any or each vaccine dose? Which? At which period of time? How exactly dangerous they are? Or perhaps just mentioning the names of mercury, formaldehyde and aluminium would be enough to make a point?


What does this even mean? That no vaccine is needed if the disease is already on the decline? And you were defending the minority unlucky people over there.

There is a lot to prove. For example I'd like to compare non-vacinated people and occurence of diseases with those of vacinated people. Why wont you just point out a study that proves vaccines are effective?

And I'll give you an example of a study that uses the exact same vaccines given to humans. The only difference is that it is on monkeys our closest relative in the animal kingdom. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sick_monkeys.html

Although couched in scientific language, Hewitson's findings are explosive. They suggest, for the first time, that our closest animal cousins develop characteristics of autism when subjected to the same immunizations – such as the MMR shot -- and vaccine formulations – such as the mercury preservative thimerosal -- that American children received when autism diagnoses exploded in the 1990s.

I'll let you decide if they provide evidence or just shout "mercury a proven neurotoxin is bad for you."

And if a disease is in decline, which is the case for many diseases supposedly eradicated by vaccines, then that brings doubt to the official claim that vaccines killed the diseases. You also are ignoring the fact that records show an increase in cases of small pox after the introduction of the vaccine.


Regarding Ethical issues, I have to ask one thing. What is more unethical, testing a vaccine and using a placebo on some individuals in a double-blind study, or releasing the vaccine to be tested on the public instead?

#1) It is "unethical" to conduct placebo-controlled studies on seasonal flu vaccines to find out if they actually work.

#2) But at the same time, it is entirely ethical to give these shots to hundreds of millions of people, even while lacking any real evidence that they are safe or effective.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccin...ience.html

And I'll say it once again, give me a few links to some real studies so that I could research them. If I find that vaccines are effective thanks to double-blind placebo based studies, then I probably would change my mind on vaccines after enough research. Although, that still doesnt dismiss the other health concerns raised by vaccination and I definitly will continue to believe in the freedom of choice.
Currently I question the effectiveness of vaccines, especially because of suspicious public policy, definity conflict of interests and evidence that contradicts official claims.