I'm not anti-vaccine
then goes on to say
There is ample evidence available to bring trust in vaccines into question and without trust, the whole vaccine system is completely defunct.
Those two statements are at odds with each other. If you feel that they are not trustworthy, and that the system is "defunct", then how can you support it? When you say you are not "anti-vaccine" are you instead saying that you believe that vaccines work, just that the vaccines made currently are made in a way that you think is inferior to some previous vaccines? Or that you know of an organic way to vaccinate?
You go on to say:
With mounting evidence against the safety of vaccines, an abundance of information about the relative risks of disease, what parent would inject their baby? Only someone that still blindly trusted big pharma, the politicians and the doctors who've swallowed their propaganda or get paid.
and
The idea that vaccines are safe is ludicrous by most people's definition of the word. "Safe" in this context is an example of Orwellian double speak. "Safe" actually means....we know they're definitely risky for some, in fact they're catastrophically bad...
So it seems pretty clear that you are not pro-vaccine. Just not anti-vaccine? I'm confused.
So, any reasonable person should conclude that you are using some manipulation at the start by saying you are not anti-vaccine when it appears you clearly are. It gives the impression that you are weighing all the evidence or that you are on the fence or something similar to remove bias and make your opinion more valuable instead of coming across as a conspiracy theory nut.
You continue:
The idea that vaccines work as they should is ludicrous given the list of ingredients, the mixtures, the number of times you need the same vaccine, the number of side-effects, the number of adverse reactions, the severity of the reactions.
Yet, "not anti-vaccine"
Where are the studies on complex interactions between mixtures of vaccines and the vaccine schedule?
This is a reasonable question and frankly one of the only ones I've seen from the anti-vaccine people that is a truly valid concern. More study of these complex interactions should be done. It isn't an easy study to perform and not inexpensive either. We all want to not be taxed yet want the government to run as many studies as possible to make everything 100% without risk. Ideally. That's just not reality.
What would you expect to happen if BABY FOOD contained fragments of glass and traces of arsnic?
Ok... Bring in the Hitler argument? How is such a hyperbolic argument at all related to vaccine? You're suggesting that vaccines are the equivalent of putting glass and obvious deadly poison in baby food. Just letting you know that is an appeal to emotions fallacy you're using. You even bolded it for emphasis, YET, not anti-vaccine.
Any mandated vaccination schemes, at this point, are an act of chemical warfare against innocent people. When undermining people’s health is profitable, this is what you get. When every victim potentially generates a lifetime of profit, this is what you get.
Chemical warfare by "Big Pharma" to profit from harming humans so that the medical industry has even more people they can hospitalize. Is that what you're saying?
"A sovereign citizen, a creationist, an anti-vaxxer, and a conspiracy theorist walk into a bar. He orders a drink."
Hey doctorstrange. I felt I was perfectly clear, I'm not anti-vaccine, but I don't believe what big pharma is currently churning out fits the definition. When does a 'vaccine' become just a toxic mix of substances? Is it when big pharma falsifies its data? Is it when it contains contaminants? Is it when an even greater percentage of the population are visibly harmed? Is it when the invisible harm is quantified?
If you want to trust the blatant conflicts of interest and harm caused, go ahead. If it's soooo important for everyone to have vaccines, let's have vaccines that work and are genuinely safe. I'm all for that. Can the current astronomically corrupt system deliver that? Of course it can't.
Chemical warfare is not an exaggeration if you take away people's choice. GLYPHOSATE in the majority of the GLOBALE VACCINE SUPPLY. I think that FACT, given the HARM being done, is worthy of some emotion.
You're labels, attempts to discredit and attempts to distract from the truth of this issue are well known tactics and easily recognisable. Your singular consession regarding interactions in the schedule seems to serve only to make your statements seem reasonable because you barely touch on several other critical points.
"A sheep walks into a bar....and bleats."
What are you talking about?
I spend an inordinate amount of time addressing the anti-vaccine arguments. If I did it for every single anti-vaccine post I would get nothing done with my day.
I assume the label you accuse me of using was part of the joke at the end of my comment. It's a joke and if it fits you, then so-be-it. It was meant to be partially a joke and partially to see if you take it to heart. What other conspiracy theory and new age quackery are you in to? (rhetorical question)
My "concession" was due to it being perfectly reasonable. No agenda on my part at all. My point there was that this is something I agree with you about. Why do you need to throw a wrench into an area we have common ground?
My M.O. is moderation and balance. If we both can alter our views and opinions to where the facts take us, then we all stand to gain. I tried to offer an olive branch and show where we agree, and you still find fault with it. I can't win, so why do I try?
You've made a grave error in your research. Take a look at your Chemical Warfare argument and see if you can find it.
Good luck in your search for the truth. Your hatred for "Big Pharma" and I assume other large government agencies is clouding your reason. There really is a point where people need to be more discerning of the information they listen to.
Cheers
If you are truly attempting to be moderate and balanced, which I can accept, (I know what it's like to accidentally come across in ways we don't intend on occasion,) then please, instead of trying to find fault with an honestly stated position 'not anti vaccine.' Don't cast aspersions regarding spurious associations with conspiracy and other unrelated subjects. Instead, address the issues stated. You have not addressed a fraction of the issues raised in my original post.
I didn't like the flippant tone of your post nor your 'joke' at the end, but there's no hard feelings ;))
I've done months and months of research into this subject. Have you done the same? What I have found is an unconscionable system of abuse to make money that is totally in denial of the harm it causes. The destruction of trust in pharmaceutical companies, the government and medical establishment on every level with regards to vaccines.
Would you inject your child with a vaccine that was potentially contaminated with glyphosate?