Risky Vaccines
Vaccines have risks; but the risks are low.
The risks from not getting vaccinated are higher than the risks from the vaccinations themselves.
Childhood mortality started to drop when children began to be vaccinated, and has continued to drop as vaccination rates rise. Not all of the drop in mortality is due to vaccines, of course; but the rate of death or disease related to vaccines is a great deal lower than the rate of death or disease related to being part of an unvaccinated population.
You can eliminate the risk of vaccine damage by not being vaccinated--but only by taking on the much higher risks that come from being vulnerable to the disease itself.
The chemicals in vaccines are not in high enough doses to be dangerous. (And mercury has been removed entirely, or reduced to traces.)
The thing about toxins is that they are not "inherently toxic in any amount", but toxic above a certain concentration. Mercury, lead, formaldehyde, and other dangerous substances are present in the environment naturally. Given good equipment, I could detect these substances in organic produce, drinking water, clothing, and air. I could do it in the middle of a national park, where human influence is minimal. These "chemicals" are a part of nature.
A lot of people's reasoning seems to be along the lines of, "If it's not 100% safe, forget it."
Trying to be 100% safe will just turn you into a paranoid nutcase and it'll reduce your options down to near nothing. Everything takes risks.
Part of human nature is hating uncertainty, wanting to be as safe as possible, and even ignoring larger risks in order to try to reduce the chances of some feared event happening. You can see a more obvious example of this in post-9/11 America, when many people were totally ignorant of the large risk of giving up freedom in exchange for security because they were so highly aware of the small risk of dying in a terrorist attack. (YMMV. Some people think the risks from terrorists really are higher. From my study of history, people are in greater risk from a government that is not accountable to its people than from any foreign threat.)
It's like refusing to wear a seat belt because it could trap you in the car, while ignoring the much greater risk of dying because you weren't wearing one.
You will always take risks. Trying to avoid one danger altogether may make you vulnerable to a much greater danger. There is no perfect solution.
The risks from not getting vaccinated are higher than the risks from the vaccinations themselves.
Childhood mortality started to drop when children began to be vaccinated, and has continued to drop as vaccination rates rise. Not all of the drop in mortality is due to vaccines, of course; but the rate of death or disease related to vaccines is a great deal lower than the rate of death or disease related to being part of an unvaccinated population.
You can eliminate the risk of vaccine damage by not being vaccinated--but only by taking on the much higher risks that come from being vulnerable to the disease itself.
The chemicals in vaccines are not in high enough doses to be dangerous. (And mercury has been removed entirely, or reduced to traces.)
The thing about toxins is that they are not "inherently toxic in any amount", but toxic above a certain concentration. Mercury, lead, formaldehyde, and other dangerous substances are present in the environment naturally. Given good equipment, I could detect these substances in organic produce, drinking water, clothing, and air. I could do it in the middle of a national park, where human influence is minimal. These "chemicals" are a part of nature.
A lot of people's reasoning seems to be along the lines of, "If it's not 100% safe, forget it."
Trying to be 100% safe will just turn you into a paranoid nutcase and it'll reduce your options down to near nothing. Everything takes risks.
Part of human nature is hating uncertainty, wanting to be as safe as possible, and even ignoring larger risks in order to try to reduce the chances of some feared event happening. You can see a more obvious example of this in post-9/11 America, when many people were totally ignorant of the large risk of giving up freedom in exchange for security because they were so highly aware of the small risk of dying in a terrorist attack. (YMMV. Some people think the risks from terrorists really are higher. From my study of history, people are in greater risk from a government that is not accountable to its people than from any foreign threat.)
It's like refusing to wear a seat belt because it could trap you in the car, while ignoring the much greater risk of dying because you weren't wearing one.
You will always take risks. Trying to avoid one danger altogether may make you vulnerable to a much greater danger. There is no perfect solution.