Mandatory Vaccinations

First, Wakefields results have been duplicated.
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/2707646
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/wakef...dings.html

Uh, no they haven't. Natural News isn't a scientific, reliable source. If you want to show that the results are ACTUALLY duplicated, you link the actual scientific study. Go find it on pubmed, it shouldn't be hard to find, because pubmed includes pretty much everything. (Unless you're going to claim it's a conspiracy they're not on there. And that 9/11 was an inside job. And that the Queen is a reptile.) I did check Natural News, that burning hell-hole of stupid, to see if anyone had hidden the source somewhere. Imagine my total lack of surprise when there wasn't one.
The second one - did you even bother to read the pdf linked? Do you even know how to read that kind of stuff? - didn't even mention a connection to measles, but is rather a study of autistic spectrum children with bowel symptoms. We already know that bowel symptoms are common in autistic children. But it still doesn't replicate Wakefield's "findings" of measles viruses in the gut, and so it ISN'T a duplication of Wakefield's findings. Wakefield keeps claiming his results are duplicated, as well, but somehow never manages to give actual examples.

Second, Thimerosal is not the only dangerous substance within vaccines, and many scientists debate over the full effects of vaccines as a whole.

Heard the story before. Find the actual dangerous substances before making this argument, and then look at the actual amounts. There's a tiny amount of sugar in vaccines, so the antivaxers claimed this was super dangerous because sugar causes obesity and cavities. There is a tiny amount of formaldehyde in some vaccines, but you antivax nutters completely ignore the fact that this amount is equal to less than one fiftieth part the amount of formaldehyde in a single pear. Yet antivaxers aren't advocating not eating vegetables, are you?
Antivaxers are continually moving the goalposts. When yet another claimed "toxin" is proved harmless, you move onto another. In the end, will you be badmouthing the evil dihydrogen monoxide for disrupting the electrolyte balance? (Ignoring the other "toxins" added to vaccine to rectify this, of course.)

Source on the "toxin gambit". Go read it, ye rational people.

Regarding the MMR, it is a vaccine I havent focused on enough to know why it would cause autism, but the accusations of fraud here disturb me, especially with obvious disregard for the facts (particularly the fact that accusations against Wakefield are based on the BMJ article which ignored vital facts).

I'm sorry, but have you missed the little news story that Wakefield has had his medical licence revoked over his extremely dubious "study" and his unethical behaviour? And that every other co-author has withdrawn their name from the "study", and that the Lancet itself has withdrawn it? Just because you don't believe in the BMJ or the other facts, that doesn't mean they're wrong.

Also, the studies done by Wakefield and the several scientists that replicated his results (some even predating his studies) suggests that there are more toxic substances in vaccines that can cause autism and other mental disorders than just thimerosal and aluminum, perhaps the entire vaccine is potentially toxic.

I don't think you read Wakefield's study in the first place. He never said anything about the toxic substances in vaccines. He said that the combination of MMR was dangerous, and that they should be replaced by single shots (which he conveniently had juuust developed a patent for). There's more aluminium in your food than there is in a vaccine. If you really believe aluminium is dangerous, by the way, you should stop using aluminium cookware, and you should probably avoid a lot of other food as well since aluminium is quite abundant on earth. Can I guess, are you also convinced that water fluoridation is a government mind control scheme?

I have read every response. I dont think you are getting my point. Most if not all vaccines have not been studied enough to be able to detrmine that they truely are safe and dont cause problems that are equal to or greater than the very things they are supposed to be preventing. Many of them a rushed through the testing phase so the FDA and CDC will approve them for use well before the full effects are known.

I asked you what points I haven't backed up. Am I to assume that you can't find any? Also, you're wrong about vaccine research, by the way. Go HERE. Type in "vaccine safety", then go to the last page. That's just the safety testing and everything, and the records go back to 1950. It's very, very hard to get drugs rushed through testing, vaccines or not. Occasionally a drug is so helpful they stop testing because the benefit is so great, but usually that doesn't happen, and you're still quite a few years into the research to be able to spot that. Sometimes studies have to be stopped earlier because the study group seems to have poorer outcomes. An excellent example of the first kind is Gardasil, a vaccine against human papillomavirus, which causes among other things, cervical cancer. Gardasil was rushed slightly in the last testing phase for ethical reasons because the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board did not want the girls in the placebo group to be unprotected when the test group was doing so well (it was unethical to withhold the vaccine from the placebo group when the benefit and safety was so clear, after all), and the first research on Gardasil started well over TWENTY years ago. The FUTURE II study ended in 2006, having started in 2002. That's "just" four years. Most vaccines spend significantly longer in testing.