I am not anti-vaccine. I am not pro-vaccine either. I believe that vaccines can work and that they can save lives. However, I am against the ridiculous and dangerously aggressive vaccine schedule they put infants on, I am against the heavy metal adjuvents (even the aluminum-based adjuvents have adverse effects), I am against the fear-based marketing the pharmaceutical companies use to push them, and I am certainly against forcing them on anyone especially in light of fundamental failures within establishment research. Just to reiterate, I am not against vaccines. I am against scientism (especially of the iatrogenic variety) and big pharma's fear-based marketing, their heavy metal adjuvents, and the imposition a unilateral dictate upon people when they own their bodies.

I do believe we are responsible for our children and we have a duty to due what is best for them and a strong argument could be made instead that you are in fact advocating for iatrogenic child abuse when you expose your child to potential harm from the side-effects. To my point, since 1990 VAERS lists 5061 deaths attributable to vaccination side-effects. Of these, 2978 of them were children (under 3 years old). While these numbers may seem low, please remember VAERS voluntary and the FDA estimates that just 1% of actual deaths are reported to the system.

Some make the argument that if you don't vaccinate your child your are guilty of child abuse while others argue that if you do vaccinate you are guilty of child abuse. Perhaps instead of childishly pointing fingers as to who is or is not a "child abuser", why not take a less douche-bag approach and realize that your risk tolerance for vaccine adverse reactions is greater than your risk tolerance for certain diseases, while others believe the risks from vaccine side-effects are greater than the risks from being un-vaccinated? The problem is that you can't accurately quantify how many lives have been "saved" from vaccines, just like you can't accurately quantify how many have died or suffered injuries due to under reporting of adverse reactions.

One thing you can quantify are the financial incentives from the Medical-Industrial Complex:

So how much money do doctors really make from vaccines? The average American pediatrician has 1546 patients, though some pediatricians see many more. The vast majority of those patients are very young, perhaps because children transition to a family physician or stop visiting the doctor at all as they grow up. As they table above explains, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians $400 per fully vaccinated child. If your pediatrician has just 100 fully-vaccinated patients turning 2 this year, that’s $40,000. Yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays your doctor a $40,000 bonus for fully vaccinating 100 patients under the age of 2. If your doctor manages to fully vaccinate 200 patients, that bonus jumps to $80,000. https://wellnessandequality.com/2016/06/20/how-much-money-do-pediatricians-really-make-from-vaccines/

There is also the problem of regulatory capture too:

Unfortunately it is very profitable for the drug industry to get the medical profession to promote vaccines to the general population. Drug companies are corporations and they do not have a duty to “do no harm”. Their only duty is to make money and “mitigate” any liability the company might be forced to deal with in a court of law. And since the Supreme Court decision in 2011, Bruecewitz versus Wyeth, they have been exempted from all liability regarding their vaccine products. It is important the public doesn’t forget this as it is very unlikely your physician or anyone who works for public health will remind you of this reality. https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/03/02/cdc-who-and-big-pharma-a-network-of-corruption/

I suppose ultimately my argument here assumes that we have the right to to make informed decisions with regards to our health? Do individuals own their bodies or not? If so, then you are ignoring individual and diverse risk tolerances. If not, then this has implications for a woman's right to choose and a patient/parent's right to choose their own treatments (for example, treatments for cancer, etc.). If I feel that the risk of side-effects out weight the risk of non-vaccination, that individuals should be able to make that choice. If vaccines work as intended, then the unvaccinated are the only ones at risk (and they should bear the upsides and downsides). Not complicated really.

So my point of contention is that science itself isn't final, it is tenative, always looking for new information. As such, medicine should never be forced since new or opposing data may come to light. If you are responsible for yourself (and your children) then you should be the final arbiter of what medical treatment you and your family take part in or don't.

Do I agree with anti-vaxxers or vaxxer completely? Nope. Do I want to force them to do what I want? Nope. Do I want them to force me to do what they want. Nope. So don't. Super simple. Statutory mandates are a one-size-fits-all solution to a very individualized and nuanced situation. This is better handled by tort law, not statutory law. Unfortunately torts aren't really a reliable source of redress anymore, are they?

Vaccines have largely become about revenue generation, not public health. Junk medicine to accompany our junk food, junk culture. People are suckers for advertising, especially when accompanied by an actor in a white lab coat. So for the last time my position is simple; vaccines work but there are iatrogenic risks that must be balanced against efficacy by each individual. Second, vaccines are being marketed too aggressively by a rent-seeking pharmaceutical industry, and if people legally own their own bodies then they should be able to seek or refuse any treatment that they wish. To hell with forcing people from taking or abstaining from any treatment that they see fit.

What do you think?