This thread discusses vaccinations. It contains my somewhat biased oppinion which I will support with experiances of both myself and people I know. This will probably make a few of people upset. If this is a touchy subject for you, please curb your frusteration. If your oppinion is different, I'm perfectly fine with that. That's your freedom, and there is no "right" or "wrong" with a controversal topic like this. It is not my intent to offend anyone. If you'd rather not read my oppinion, skip to the ~~~~~.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I'm not entirely for them, either.

I believe that some vacccines, such as the good ol' polio vaccine, can help save lives.That said, I'm well aware some of the newer vaccines (Particularlly MMR) have been notorius causing severe injuries.

Now, I've hed a few 'experiances' with vaccines myself. I'm fully vaccinated, though when I got the chicken-pox and the flu vaccines, I was stricken with the two respective diseases. I remember getting the flu pretty badly that year. I could nither eat nor drink without throwing up, and quickly became so dehydrated I had to overnight at the hospital with an IV in my left arm. I had maybe three hours of sleep that night. My sister had it the worst, though. Before she was even a year old, she fell very ill with pneumonia within hours of receiving the vaccine that was supposed to prevent it. I thought I was going to loose her, and I thank God that she's still around.

So, why bring this up?

Because while vaccines may work for some, it may not be safe for others.

I recently read an article on Publichealth.org reguarding certian "myths" about vaccines. It was the first link I found when I looked up "can vaccines be harmful to some people?" It essentially says vaccines are okay, but it takes it's source from a government owned website. Let me know if you want my thoughts on the article, but put simply, I don't really trust their satistics. Seeing as they already made a big deal about global warming (which we didn't start and can't prevent), if politics (or big industries, but that's another rabbit hole) point to anything and call it science, I automatically don't believe what they say about it.

So, what's my point in mentioning this article and inserting my oppinion? Vaccines can be harmful, and this article even acknowledges it in places. My problem isn't with the vaccines in and of themselves. My problem is that the government is starting to pressure us into taking something that can potentially hurt us.

~~~~~
My history teacher once told me that it's easy to take away a right the people don't know they have. You have the right to decline vaccines or accept them, despite doctors saying it's mandatory.

So my intent in posting this is to say this:

You do have a choice. More than what doctors may say you have.

Do your own reasearch, trust your own instincts, form your own oppinion, and stand firm in it.

Don't let the feds tell you what to do with your freedoms.

If you're oppinion is differnet then mine, feel free to share. I'm not going to shift to your views, but I enjoy learning how people think about different topics. It helps me interact with them better, and it strenghtens my own oppinions.

I'm also biased (everyone is), but I want to make a couple of my own points.

Please tell me if any of this comes off as rude, that's not my intention.

"Seeing as they already made a big deal about global warming (which we didn't start and can't prevent), if politics (or big industries, but that's another rabbit hole) point to anything and call it science, I automatically don't believe what they say about it."

I'm not going to get much into global warming because that's not what this is about, but it would definitely be possible to at least slow it down if there were laws passed to deter people/businesses from releasing a lot of greenhouse gases.

I'm not entirely sure if you mean that if someone makes a political argument and cites something claiming it's scientific, then you won't believe it's true, or if you mean that you won't believe them if they decide anything that confirms their political biases must be scientifically accurate. If it's the latter, then I agree that that's a bit fishy, but if it's the former, then that's just your own bias against politically motivated things (although people should fact-check things, immediately deciding something is false specifically because of what someone uses it to support is just bias).

People getting themselves and their children vaccinated isn't just to protect themselves, it's to protect others. As you have already stated, vaccines aren't 100% effective. However, many are extremely effective, for example, one dose of the MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella. This is important because vaccines help create herd immunity, which you probably already know about, seeing as you claim to have done some amount of research on the internet about vaccines, but for the sake of anyone else reading this that doesn't know, herd immunity is when enough of a population is immune to a disease that said disease is very unlikely to cause an outbreak. This protects people that are unable to get vaccinated for reasons including but not limited to:
* Having an allergy to some part(s) of the vaccine
* Having a weakened immune system
* Being pregnant
ect. Keep in mind, it varies from vaccine to vaccine, and other than an allergy or being sick already, none of the reasons are universal.

"My problem is that the government is starting to pressure us into taking something that can potentially hurt us."

About the government trying to pressure people into doing something that could potentially harm people, that's a bit more tricky. People shouldn't be forced to do things that could harm them/their children (things such as allergies to vaccines are rare, but possible), but it's also the government's job to make sure people are safe. Besides, the government gains nothing by killing/hurting/disabling/whatever children in a way such as vaccines, which don't really target any demographic in particular, other than people that aren't the kids of anti-vaxxers.

I think that ultimately, the safety of others is more important than peoples' right to choose whether they/their kid gets vaccinated. If someone's health isn't in danger if they take a vaccine, then they should get vaccinated. People don't have the right to drive drunk because it puts not only themselves, but others in danger, so they shouldn't be allowed to endanger themselves and others by not vaccinating themselves against dangerous illnesses (this in addition to high standards for testing to make sure the vaccine is safe to take, of course).

I started writing so many sentences in response to this post but none of them felt right. There's so much to cover and so much to correct that I just don't have the words for it all.

The feds aren't telling you what to do. Science, human decency, and your doctors are. One of goals and purposes of vaccinations is a herd immunity. Herd immunity is the protection of a population (not just individuals) by making the majority of a population immune to a disease. This is how mankind successfully wiped out smallpox. When the majority of the population was immune to it, the disease no longer had anyone to spread to and breed inside. The disease died out and now samples of it only exist in a few select labs.

You are certainly free to take your own chances in regards to your health, but the diseases that we immunize against are all highly contagious. By choosing not to vaccinate yourself you risk not only contracting the disease, but giving it to others as well. 'Others' includes children too young to get vaccinated and those with medical issues that prevent them from getting vaccinated. Already we've seen outbreaks of measles among small children that have been traced back to anti-vaxxers refusing to vaccinate their children. Refusing to vaccinate just to 'stick it to the government' is, to me, extremely irresponsible, dangerous, and disrespectful.

As for global warming, again, the government is not telling you anything about it. Science is. If anything, the United States government is still in a state of denial. We pulled out of the Paris climate deal and still have not put forth any significant regulations to do similar. The EPA's budget was cut significantly and since taking office our most recent president has actually ended some climate change policies.

Also, yes, we CAN prevent climate change. It would just take a lot of effort (and cooperation) to do so.

Source: Science

Gobal warming....
*Inhales*
You know what? Let's not go down that rabbit hole right now. We can later if you want.

I don't refuse to vaccinate because I wanna 'stick it to the government. I refuse to vaccinate because I don't want mercury, other toxins, and fragmaneted baby DNA in my body. Read any ingrediants list for vaccines. Do you really want all of that junk in your blood stream?

Like I said, some vaccines I'm okay with. Polio and Smallpox vaccines actually have actually prevented their respective diseases. But here's the thing about those two vaccines: Those were tried and true over many, many years of testing before ever being released to the public. That's much unlike other, more modern vaccines like MMR and the flu vaccines. If you don't believe me, the flu is a virus that changes every year; therefore, the vaccine can't remain in testing for long if it's to be of any use.

As for your final remark, here is something you must understand. Humans invented what we call 'science'. Humans are imperfect, and therefore, science is fallible. Please, don't believe everything science tells you, because until humans are perfect, science won't always be right. If you walk away from this post with anything, walk away with that.

But if that's truly your oppinion, I respect that. The point of this was to get people to think for themselves instead of just going with the flow of the general teaching and media.

Wow, reading this was like seeing two people at opposite ends of the spectrum and one in the middle. Personally, I think we should get vaccines that won't hurt us. Like if someone is allergic so they don't get it, they have a good reason not to get vaccinated. Some people say though that vaccines give people autism, which isn't caused by that. It's fine if it's your opinion, but it's not mine. Autism is more genetic then anything. They actually don't know what causes it though. People make such a big deal about all this stuff, but really think, as long as people vaccinate their children if they want, and don't make a big deal out of things, it's the other people who are against all vaccines children that are most likely in danger. If you think that you should wait for some vaccines until they're tested more, that is perfectly fine and a little smart. You dont know what might hurt you. Like I said, just my opinion. Doing take offense if it's not yours like some people would.

That is totally alright. It looks like you've formed your own oppinion, not fully conforming to either side of the issue. And that was my main point in posting this-- I wanted to get people to really think about it and decide for themselves what's right; not to just listen to what their teacher or the media tells them.

Oh, and about autism and vaccines? I'd rather stay away from there. I'm an aspie, and I know as well as anyone that there are too many things that could cause autism to use it as a valid agrument for anything.

"I refuse to vaccinate because I don't want mercury, other toxins, and fragmaneted baby DNA in my body."

1. Mercury is a chemical element that can be extremely toxic. Notice, though, that it is, and I repeat, a chemical element. As anyone with any basic knowledge about chemistry can tell you, the properties of a molecule can differ vastly from the elements that it contains. The mercury that is in vaccines is a mercury compound called thiomeosal. Again, mercury COMPOUND. As in molecule with elements other than mercury. As in not pure mercury.

Let me give you an example of the "Element A characteristics + Element B characteristics =/= molecule AB characteristics" thing: Hydrogen is flammable. Oxygen is flammable. Water is dihydrogen monoxide. Water is not flammable, and is quite useful for putting out certain kinds of fires.

Mercury is not a magical element that forces its characteristics onto any molecule it's part of. Some molecules containing mercury are toxic. Some aren't.

2. "Other toxins" is painfully nonspecific and tells me nothing, and could very well be referring to other compounds that are safe in the small doses given via vaccines that are attacked because of misunderstandings, like thiomersal.

3. There is no fragmented baby DNA in vaccines. I have no idea how or where you could ever get this idea. Please provide a source for this.

The only DNA in vaccines is that of the dead or weakened bacteria or viruses that are in it. The presence of these, along with small, safe amounts of things like aluminum, help trigger your immune response, which treats the vaccine as a pathogen and figures out how to fight the bacteria or virus. It creates antibodies to fight it off, which is usually extremely easy, as said bacteria/viruses are, as previously stated, weakened or dead. None of this requires, or would be helped by human DNA, whether from an adult or a baby.

With all of this stated, your comment about not wanting to vaccinate indicates that you are, in fact, against vaccines, which, if true, would make you an anti-vaxxer, if I didn't somehow miss something.

"Humans invented what we call 'science'. Humans are imperfect, and therefore, science is fallible. Please, don't believe everything science tells you, because until humans are perfect, science won't always be right. "

Humans invented the scientific method, yes, but science is based only on evidence that we have. I understand that sometimes experiments can be run that are done almost laughably horribly. However, vaccines are things that people, scientists included, don't take lightly. The standards for a vaccine to be deemed safe for use on humans are quite high, and you can read about them here.

Our understanding of the world around us and how it works will, indeed, change over time, but we still have to work with the knowledge that we have right now. What science has to offer is our best guess. There is a reason why good studies can be peer-reviewed and replicated and have the same results pop up: because science works. Badly conducted studies can be debunked by other studies. The biggest problem right now is that there is little money to be made by doing studies that essentially check other scientists' work by trying to replicate them. This often leads to a lack of studies that try to verify the original. Studies about vaccines don't have this problem, though, as study after study has been conducted about various effects of vaccines on people, and the overwhelming majority of the time, we find the same thing: vaccines are safe for humans (discounting those that have allergies to them, obviously).

We can be wrong, yes. Humans are not, and will never be, perfect. But after the huge volume of studies conducted on vaccines that have concluded that they're safe, it seems very unlikely that they're dangerous.

I will admit I don't know how the flu vaccine is developed and tested every year. As for the MMR vaccine, the only claim I've heard about it being dangerous is that it causes autism, a myth that originated from a single, heavily debunked study. If you think it's dangerous because of mercury, unspecified toxins, and baby DNA, I can assure you that it's probably not.

Due to the fact my aunt (and my bestie's mom, and my other bestie's mom used to be a nurse) are nurses, I have to say I'm extremely biased here, but also decently informed about things like these.

I know opinions are almost impossible to change, I watched a documentary about how usually disagreeing with someone will just make them more defensive and rooted in their beliefs

Pretty much in every circumstance, I'm fully pro vaxx.

For vaccine injuries, a high majority are caused by allergic reactions to some of the ingredients, or mild symptoms like a slight fever while the body learns how to fight the disease.

Personally, I'd rather take a mild fever or drowsiness that'll be gone in a few hours compared to a week of horrible pain, high fevers, puking, and all those gross things

The mercury in vaccines in ethyl mercury (inside of fish) and its such a small amount. Not to mention the fact its mixed with other chemicals that change the properties (think of it something like salt being sodium [highly explosive and insanely dangerous] and chlorine [highly poisonous gas] and make a yummy and safe thing to put on foods, this isn't saying you should just eat a ton of salt, as its dehydrating, but you get the point)

The fetal cells in vaccines are 'cloned' cells from two terminated pregnancies in the 1960's, and are only used for the fact viruses need cells to grow and its easier with human cells. Fetal cells were used because they don't have a division limit like every other type of cell. No other fetal cells have been taken since these ones, considering there isn't anything needed from them besides the cells themselves. Its much better putting the shed embryos to use saving literally millions of lives as opposed to just being gone and letting kids suffer or die.

As for the flu vaccine, I've always seen that as an optional one that I'll get if I'm going to the doctor's anyway, but I've always seen mmr as an essential, mainly because of measles.

measles is absolutely no joke. It causes pain and suffering that is so incredibly worse than any vaccine injury that could be caused by recent vaccines.

I had a relative, she was a distant cousin on my dad's side, I met her once a few months before she passed. She was staying in my family's house while we were on vacation. This woman was recovering from cancer, and she was recently released from the hospital and was recovering. A few months later, the cancer came back. Over the course of a few months things happened and she was done with chemo and cancer, but because of that, she had no immune system. She passed a few weeks after being declared cancer free due to measles because some selfish person figured that essential oils and mlm schemes could fix everything, and it still makes me so mad.

I must say though, my bio teacher's kid had something resembling a vaccine injury when he got the MMR vaccine... however, the only thing that occurred was the appearance of the rash, no pain or itching or anything, he just looked weird for a few hours and was completely unaffected.

(Sources and articles, besides family and other people I'm close to)
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/fetal-tissues
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/measles-outbreaks-make-2018-near-record-year-u-s-n961276

Here's the source you asked for. This is an official document of various vaccine ingredients. Anywhere you see MRC-5 is where you can find that "Fragmented Baby DNA" I spoke of. They use it to keep the weakened bacteria alive long enough to be 'useful'. The only problem is, the MRC-5 is dying human tissue (Where they get the tissue from is a whole other controversal topic). The DNA is breaking down, and that fragmented DNA can be easily absorbed by your body's cells, more easily than a whole strand of DNA. I think you can imagine how that can go horribly wrong.

As for the mercury compound found in the vaccines, thimerosal, it's listed as a toxin, a health hazard, and an enviornmental hazard here.

First of all, I would really like to commend everyone here on keeping this discussion civil. It's insane how quickly things can devolve when people start talking from opposite sides of the spectrum.
Second, I would like to address a few misconceptions.
I don't want mercury, other toxins, and fragmented baby DNA in my body.
You don't have to worry about the mercury. Thimerosal, which is a mercury compound that used to be used as a preservative in vaccines was largely removed in 2001 from most infant vaccinations. The "fragmented baby DNA" is only in some vaccines, and only one strain (MRC-5, which is a cell line that was cultivated from an aborted fetus in 1966. Here's some more info on that if you want to know more on that). (Also, if you want to know something kind of gross, you are breathing more DNA than is injected by the way of dead skin cells. Your skin sheds constantly. Ever wonder why dogs can smell someone so well?)
I can see why you're alarmed, though. If you take a look at the ingredient list, it's overwhelming, and to be frank, kind of scary. But most of the ingredients are buffers. Sucrose is one that pops up a lot, which is just table sugar. Sodium chloride? Table salt. These ingredients act as stabilizers to keep the more volatile ingredients (such as those that actually grant immunity) from decomposing.
You also may notice things like formaldehyde, which is embalming fluid. That's certainly alarming. But it's at a very low concentration. The overall dosage of any given vaccine is between 0.2mL to 1.0mL. Even if we were to say the vaccine is all formaldehyde, at the highest amount, it would take 30 vaccines all given in a short amount of time, to kill you. Here's the thing, though. Vaccines aren't all formaldehyde because people know that would not be good. And that brings me to my second point.
Science is fallible
You are absolutely correct. We are only human. We make mistakes. However, science is not just one person. If it was, yes, that is extremely sketchy and I do not blame you for not trusting it.
Science is about this. One person or a small team of people have a hypothesis. They test it and publish their results. If it ended there, that's not trustworthy at all (this is essentially anecdotal evidence, you can ask me for more info about if you'd like. I'd be happy to share). But it doesn't. More people take the first person's findings and are like "hmm, perhaps this is wrong." So they test it more and refine the first person's theory. And then another person tests it. And another. And it continues like this. The thing about science is, is it never stops. Even if something is deemed safe, it's science's job to question that and try to find a way to make it safer.
If you're going to leave this rambling mess of a post with anything, it's this: Science can be scary. It's not always perfect. So can scientific sources. But instead of being scared of large words (to be honest, I was when I first looked at the list of ingredients for vaccines), take the time to look them up. Sometimes, you'll find that they're not as bad as they sound. Science has a way of making the ordinary seem terrifying, but you have to remember that in the end, it's still ordinary.