The Real Next Level BS of the Vaccine Controversy.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: soficrow

Thanks, you also did a great job in your thread.

The more this info is shown the better. It might eventually be picked up by more and more people that we need REAL safe vaccines, instead we are being lied to even by agencies like the CDC, not to mention pharmaceutical companies like Merck, and don't get me started about all those doctors that like Thompson know vaccines are not as safe as people are being told and they are complicit in this...

This is a real crime against humanity.

I have to wonder how many parents with autistic children actually believe health authorities and don't think their children's autism was triggered by vaccines, when it is possible that it was. I am not saying all autism cases were caused by vaccines, but since so many doctors follow the example of the CDC, and other health agencies, there are parents, and other people who believe what these officials are telling them despite there being a plethora of evidence that refutes their claims.

If more parents did more research into those studies which link certain vaccines, like MMR, and compounds like ethylmercury, or adjuvants like AI (aluminum) to neurological disorders, and other health problems, we might get a big enough amount of parents demanding for the truth, and for truly safer vaccines.

If there was any real danger, the things you talk about would be clear to all and widespread. But they aren't.

originally posted by: jaffo

If there was any real danger, the things you talk about would be clear to all and widespread. But they aren't.

Not so, first of all a lot of people "trust" health authorities despite the fact that health authorities have been lying at least about vaccine safety.

Second of all, according to Wikipedia, in the U.S. alone.

...
From 1988 until 8 January 2008, 5,263 claims relating to autism, and 2,865 non-autism claims, were made to the VICP. 925 of these claims, one autism-related (see previous rulings), were compensated, with 1,158 non-autism and 350 autism claims dismissed; awards (including attorney's fees) totaled $847 million.[6] The VICP also applies to claims for injuries suffered before 1988; there were 4,264 of these claims of which 1,189 were compensated with awards totaling $903 million.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

These cases in the Vaccine court fall under a "no-fault system", without a jury and the cases are "closed" to public scrutiny.

Those are just some of the cases. There are millions of people who "simply trust health officials" and they don't know that it has been found on several occasions that health officials have not only been lying about the safety of certain vaccines, but have even gone as far as colluding with vaccine manufacturers in burying the evidence that shows certain vaccines are not as safe as people are being told.

Then there is the fact that many families whose children have been affected by vaccines simply can't hire a good lawyer, since these families already incur very high expenses for treating their autistic, and other neurophysiological damaged children apart from the normal medical expenses they must pay. Many of these families simply cannot pay for litigation costs.

Instead of just typing a one phrase response you should investigate this yourself. Some other members and myself have given plenty of evidence that corroborates our argument, but there is plenty more out there. You just have to be willing to find it.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: jaffo

If there was any real danger, the things you talk about would be clear to all and widespread. But they aren't.

Not so, first of all a lot of people "trust" health authorities despite the fact that health authorities have been lying at least about vaccine safety.

Second of all, according to Wikipedia, in the U.S. alone.

...
From 1988 until 8 January 2008, 5,263 claims relating to autism, and 2,865 non-autism claims, were made to the VICP. 925 of these claims, one autism-related (see previous rulings), were compensated, with 1,158 non-autism and 350 autism claims dismissed; awards (including attorney's fees) totaled $847 million.[6] The VICP also applies to claims for injuries suffered before 1988; there were 4,264 of these claims of which 1,189 were compensated with awards totaling $903 million.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

These cases in the Vaccine court fall under a "no-fault system", without a jury and the cases are "closed" to public scrutiny.

Those are just some of the cases. There are millions of people who "simply trust health officials" and they don't know that it has been found on several occasions that health officials have not only been lying about the safety of certain vaccines, but have even gone as far as colluding with vaccine manufacturers in burying the evidence that shows certain vaccines are not as safe as people are being told.

Then there is the fact that many families whose children have been affected by vaccines simply can't hire a good lawyer, since these families already incur very high expenses for treating their autistic, and other neurophysiological damaged children apart from the normal medical expenses they must pay. Many of these families simply cannot pay for litigation costs.

Instead of just typing a one phrase response you should investigate this yourself. Some other members and myself have given plenty of evidence that corroborates our argument, but there is plenty more out there. You just have to be willing to find it.

From 1988 to 2008 there was somewhere in the region of 76,000,000 (million) children born.
If you average out around 20 shots per child that would mean there were around 1.5 BILLION vaccines given.
925 were found to have a possible vaccine induced injury which they were compensated for.

That's still too many but in comparison, hardly any at all. However, that's why research must continue to reduce even the small possibility of problems.
Unfortunately an awful lot of time and resources are taken up refuting the nonsense you and your ilk keep on regurgitating.
Naturally using these resources means there is less for beneficial research.
But you lot don't understand that do you?
Personally I think you should all be ignored now as you've had nothing new for years and what you have had has shown to be at best just wrong but frighteningly in most cases it's been purposely dishonest.

Talking of being dishonest...it doesn't cost anything to file a claim through a lawyer for a "vaccine injury" so your claim that most people can't afford lawyers, like so many of your other claims, is false.
www.mctlawyers.com...
So were you unaware of this or have you just lied to create effect?

You like posting "scientific studies" don't you?
Here's some for you.
Now, what I would like you to do is, rather than ignore them and re-post your links I've shown to be worthless, go through each and every one one and tell me why they are not viable.
Using science obviously!
If you can't do that I and the other readers of this thread will have to assume that you accept them in their entirety and by doing so you would have no other option than to admit that your belief (as that's what it is, a belief) is wrong.

www.vaccinateyourbaby.org...

www2.aap.org...


I'll wait.

a reply to: Pardon?

There is no doubt the whole vaccine "strategy" is problematic - even without corporate malfeasance, which is well-documented.

For example, one of the biggest problems with vaccines -well-known and accepted in the industry- is the fact that vaccines create new disease strains. Vaccine-associated cases result in new outbreaks, and the emergence of (new) recombinant viral strains.

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

………Most notably, vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) demonstrates how vaccine-associated cases of disease can occur even when disease due to wild-type virus is eliminated. Post-eradication strategies will require continual surveillance, more information about the duration of shedding and the persistence of the vaccine-derived virus in the environment, and continuing vaccine coverage even in areas where wild-type virus has been eradicated.

Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

There is no doubt the whole vaccine "strategy" is problematic - even without corporate malfeasance, which is well-documented.

For example, one of the biggest problems with vaccines -well-known and accepted in the industry- is the fact that vaccines create new disease strains. Vaccine-associated cases result in new outbreaks, and the emergence of (new) recombinant viral strains.

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

………Most notably, vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) demonstrates how vaccine-associated cases of disease can occur even when disease due to wild-type virus is eliminated. Post-eradication strategies will require continual surveillance, more information about the duration of shedding and the persistence of the vaccine-derived virus in the environment, and continuing vaccine coverage even in areas where wild-type virus has been eradicated.

Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

"There is no doubt the whole vaccine "strategy" is problematic"
Care to elaborate on that please as I completely disagree?
And so does the rest of science.

The book that you cite doesn't say what you think it does.
You need to read it again.
Well after you've actually read the post you replied to.
And I'll say the same to you, refute what is linked to using science.
If you can't then the science must be robust mustn't it?

Official statistics showing how various diseases were at their lowest decline when vaccines were introduced for them

www.getholistichealth.com... es-did-not-save-us-2-centuries-of-official-statistics/

originally posted by: artistpoet
Official statistics showing how various diseases were at their lowest decline when vaccines were introduced for them

www.getholistichealth.com... es-did-not-save-us-2-centuries-of-official-statistics/

Oh dear.

That shows graphs on mortality rates.
Would you like to see some graphs showing the reduction in incidence rates due to vaccines?
Would you?

Here you are then.
graphics.wsj.com...

Here's a nice commentary on the graphs in the link you posted.
www.harpocratesspeaks.com...

And here's a real study for you.
jama.jamanetwork.com...


Convinced?
No?
You never will be will you?

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

There is no doubt the whole vaccine "strategy" is problematic - even without corporate malfeasance, which is well-documented.

For example, one of the biggest problems with vaccines -well-known and accepted in the industry- is the fact that vaccines create new disease strains. Vaccine-associated cases result in new outbreaks, and the emergence of (new) recombinant viral strains.

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

………Most notably, vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) demonstrates how vaccine-associated cases of disease can occur even when disease due to wild-type virus is eliminated. Post-eradication strategies will require continual surveillance, more information about the duration of shedding and the persistence of the vaccine-derived virus in the environment, and continuing vaccine coverage even in areas where wild-type virus has been eradicated.

Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

The book that you cite doesn't say what you think it does.

You don't know what I think, and I frankly do not think you have the capacity to apprehend even 1/10 of my reflections. All I said was, "For example, one of the biggest problems with vaccines -well-known and accepted in the industry- is the fact that vaccines create new disease strains. Vaccine-associated cases result in new outbreaks, and the emergence of (new) recombinant viral strains." And I backed it up with the relevant quote. Which is more than you and your ilk do,

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

………Most notably, vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) demonstrates how vaccine-associated cases of disease can occur even when disease due to wild-type virus is eliminated. Post-eradication strategies will require continual surveillance, more information about the duration of shedding and the persistence of the vaccine-derived virus in the environment, and continuing vaccine coverage even in areas where wild-type virus has been eradicated.

Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

a reply to: Pardon?

Oh dear.

Oh dear ...

That shows graphs on mortality rates.
Would you like to see some graphs showing the reduction in incidence rates due to vaccines?
Would you?

Here you are then.
graphics.wsj.com...

Your link to Graphs proves my point ... Measles deaths were at a low time incident when vaccines were introduced ... those figures continued to decline ... Truth is Measles was declining and continued to decline ... I do not think this is due to vaccines by any means ... from what I have read the recent Measles vaccine was detrimental in that the cases of death by measles was from those vaccinated ... no deaths from un-vaccinated were reported...

Convinced?
No?
You never will be will you?

Nor will you .... Let people make their own choices

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Pardon?

Oh dear.

Oh dear ...

That shows graphs on mortality rates.
Would you like to see some graphs showing the reduction in incidence rates due to vaccines?
Would you?

Here you are then.
graphics.wsj.com...

Your link to Graphs proves my point ... Measles deaths were at a low time incident when vaccines were introduced ... those figures continued to decline ... Truth is Measles was declining and continued to decline ... I do not think this is due to vaccines by any means ... from what I have read the recent Measles vaccine was detrimental in that the cases of death by measles was from those vaccinated ... no deaths from un-vaccinated were reported...

Convinced?
No?
You never will be will you?

Nor will you .... Let people make their own choices

Which graphs were you looking at?
The ones I posted do not show mortality rates, they show incidence rates.
Read the other link I posted too.

I'm more than happy for people to make their own choices however their choices shouldn't be influenced by deliberate misinformation from anti-vaxxers and science deniers.

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

There is no doubt the whole vaccine "strategy" is problematic - even without corporate malfeasance, which is well-documented.

For example, one of the biggest problems with vaccines -well-known and accepted in the industry- is the fact that vaccines create new disease strains. Vaccine-associated cases result in new outbreaks, and the emergence of (new) recombinant viral strains.

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

………Most notably, vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) demonstrates how vaccine-associated cases of disease can occur even when disease due to wild-type virus is eliminated. Post-eradication strategies will require continual surveillance, more information about the duration of shedding and the persistence of the vaccine-derived virus in the environment, and continuing vaccine coverage even in areas where wild-type virus has been eradicated.

Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

The book that you cite doesn't say what you think it does.

You don't know what I think, and I frankly do not think you have the capacity to apprehend even 1/10 of my reflections. All I said was, "For example, one of the biggest problems with vaccines -well-known and accepted in the industry- is the fact that vaccines create new disease strains. Vaccine-associated cases result in new outbreaks, and the emergence of (new) recombinant viral strains." And I backed it up with the relevant quote. Which is more than you and your ilk do,

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

………Most notably, vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) demonstrates how vaccine-associated cases of disease can occur even when disease due to wild-type virus is eliminated. Post-eradication strategies will require continual surveillance, more information about the duration of shedding and the persistence of the vaccine-derived virus in the environment, and continuing vaccine coverage even in areas where wild-type virus has been eradicated.

Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

I'm quite pleased I don't have the capacity to apprehend [sic] your reflections.
Although I'm honoured to be in the same thread as someone of your obvious magnificence.

Did you perhaps notice that the title of the piece you quoted was " Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication"?
Do you understand what eradication means?

Although you "backed it up with the relevant quote" what you didn't do is mention that the book (book, not study btw) was from 2002.
That's a long time in medical science.
And were doing pretty much everything it suggested.
There are plenty of monitoring systems in place worldwide looking at diseases, especially VPD's and they're becoming more and more specific and accurate all the time.
Even to the point of being able to specify the exact non-vaccinated person who starts outbreaks.

VAAP is still a minor issue in some places but you're looking at a 1 in 2.7 million incidence.
So not really an epidemiological worry but like I said, an issue which needs to be resolved. And it will.

The fact that viruses can mutate is why now most vaccines for viral diseases target the serotype of the virus rather than the genotypes as was mentioned in your book.
This was demonstrated really well in the recent Disneyland outbreak where the genotype (B3) was isolated in 9 cases but was not an indigenous strain. If the vaccine was genotype specific the outbreak would have been an epidemic.

So if anything, the book you link to shows how well vaccines work and why we should continue vaccination and keep monitoring them.
Or have I missed something, you know, not apprehended properly...?

a reply to: Pardon?

Are you aware that "eradication" is a myth?

[That's the point of the book.]

a reply to: Pardon?

But I am talking about deaths by measles ... there have been non since 2004 but 108 deaths due to vaccines

Measles is not a Killer nor has it ever been ... only those with other medical issues
I take my finding from real life having had measles as a kid and so did all my friends ... it was an expected ... This present generation is unaware of this ...

As for anti vaxxers and pro vaxxers ... it is a matter of choice ... the recent hysteria by pro vaxxers proved false ... and it is a fact vaccines can and do cause harm ... I would personally rather take my chances with my own natural immune system ... than take the chance of being harmed however slight that may be

So our discussion is fruitless in that respect ... The one thing I agree on is that unbiased information be given ... but information is biased on both sides

So with respect I agree to disagree

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

Are you aware that "eradication" is a myth?

[That's the point of the book.]

I'm aware that it will continue to be a myth because of the anti-vaxxer misinformation crusade.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Pardon?

But I am talking about deaths by measles ... there have been non since 2004 but 108 deaths due to vaccines

Measles is not a Killer nor has it ever been ... only those with other medical issues
I take my finding from real life having had measles as a kid and so did all my friends ... it was an expected ... This present generation is unaware of this ...

As for anti vaxxers and pro vaxxers ... it is a matter of choice ... the recent hysteria by pro vaxxers proved false ... and it is a fact vaccines can and do cause harm ... I would personally rather take my chances with my own natural immune system ... than take the chance of being harmed however slight that may be

So our discussion is fruitless in that respect ... The one thing I agree on is that unbiased information be given ... but information is biased on both sides

So with respect I agree to disagree

You disagree because of ignorance and belief of misinformation though.
And that's really sad.

There have been no deaths directly attributable to the measles vaccine.
Not one.
The 108 number you come up with (in some cases it's 109, some it's 99, anti-vaxxers can't even agree on the numbers!) are plucked from the VAERS database.
The VAERS database is one which people voluntarily file possible interactions and adverse events from vaccines.
No causality needs to be shown.
If a severe adverse event is reported (including death) this is further investigated but not reported back to VAERS as this is only the first line of reporting.
None of the deaths reported to VAERS with an association to the MMR were shown to have been caused by the MMR.

However, you claim that there have been no deaths from measles.
That's false.
There were at least 4 in the US between 2009 and 2010 (and that was at a time when measles was said to have been eliminated).
www.cdc.gov...
www.cdc.gov...

Consider the fairly recent measles outbreak in France, a country with very good healthcare and living conditions.
wwwnc.cdc.gov...
"Abstract

Although few measles cases were reported in France during 2006 and 2007, suggesting the country might have been close to eliminating the disease, a dramatic outbreak of >20,000 cases occurred during 2008–2011. Adolescents and young adults accounted for more than half of cases; median patient age increased from 12 to 16 years during the outbreak. The highest incidence rate was observed in children under 1 year of age, reaching 135 cases/100,000 infants during the last epidemic wave. Almost 5,000 patients were hospitalized, including 1,023 for severe pneumonia and 27 for encephalitis/myelitis; 10 patients died. More than 80% of the cases during this period occurred in unvaccinated persons, reflecting heterogeneous vaccination coverage, where pockets of susceptible persons still remain".

5,000 hospitalised.
1,023 for severe pneumonia (have you any experience of severe pneumonia? It's really not that nice.)
27 with encephalitis. (Encephalitis is bad)
10 people died. (Not none).

All of the above was preventable.

What bit don't you people get?
Seriously, what's wrong with you?


So going back to your statement about agreeing to disagree...
You don't have anything to disagree with.
Nothing whatsoever.

a reply to: Pardon?

You disagree because of ignorance and belief of misinformation though.
And that's really sad.

I dis-agree because I would rather take my chances with my own natural immune system ...
Also I have first hand experience of a family member being very severely affected by MMR

So going back to your statement about agreeing to disagree...
You don't have anything to disagree with.
Nothing whatsoever.

I personally disagree with vaccines ... my choice ... and I have the right to choose for myself ... call me ignorant if you wish

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Pardon?

You disagree because of ignorance and belief of misinformation though.
And that's really sad.

I dis-agree because I would rather take my chances with my own natural immune system ...
Also I have first hand experience of a family member being very severely affected by MMR

So going back to your statement about agreeing to disagree...
You don't have anything to disagree with.
Nothing whatsoever.

I personally disagree with vaccines ... my choice ... and I have the right to choose for myself ... call me ignorant if you wish

Every anti-vaxxer has a "first-hand experience" of a vaccine injury...
None of them can actually prove anything though.
No surprises there.

Of course you have the right to choose for yourself.
And like any choice, it should be made based upon correct information.
Considering you have posted incorrect information it would appear that you have made your choice in error.
Therefore you do not have anything to disagree with.

a reply to: Pardon?

Every anti-vaxxer has a "first-hand experience" of a vaccine injury...
None of them can actually prove anything though.
No surprises there.

Of course you have the right to choose for yourself.
And like any choice, it should be made based upon correct information.
Considering you have posted incorrect information it would appear that you have made your choice in error.
Therefore you do not have anything to disagree with.

Firstly I am not an anti vaxxer ... That term implies I am against vaccines full stop ... I am not ... It is a matter of personal choice ...

My decision/choice was made years before vaccines were an issue
I am not prepared to go into my personal reasons ... which also affect my choices in many other aspects of health and way of thinking / living my life ...

I am not even on a medical register ... my choice / my right

So me not explaining my real reasons for my choices ... means you have no right to say my decisions are in error and doing so means you are ignorant ... Ignorant of my real reasons which I will not share with you ...

I apologise if I mis lead you to conclude what you have ... but again my real reasons for my choices have nothing to do with any anti vaxxer campaign ... and those reasons I am not prepared to share with you as they would only ignite further controversy ... and would be way off topic

So again with respect and my further explanation of why I am not an anti vaxxer or a pro vaxxer ... I agree to diagree

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

Are you aware that "eradication" is a myth?

[That's the point of the book.]

I'm aware that it will continue to be a myth because of the anti-vaxxer misinformation crusade.

You're the one pushing misinformation here. Fact is, viruses are like the mythological Lernaean hydra - chop off one head, 2 more grow in its place - just one of the reasons "eradication" is a myth. ...and the primary rationale for continued vaccine development.

Obviously, if diseases really were 'eradicated' there would be no need to continue vaccinating for them. [It's a quintessential "Duh!" moment. Savour it.]

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

....Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Pardon?

Every anti-vaxxer has a "first-hand experience" of a vaccine injury...
None of them can actually prove anything though.
No surprises there.

Of course you have the right to choose for yourself.
And like any choice, it should be made based upon correct information.
Considering you have posted incorrect information it would appear that you have made your choice in error.
Therefore you do not have anything to disagree with.

Firstly I am not an anti vaxxer ... That term implies I am against vaccines full stop ... I am not ... It is a matter of personal choice ...

My decision/choice was made years before vaccines were an issue
I am not prepared to go into my personal reasons ... which also affect my choices in many other aspects of health and way of thinking / living my life ...

I am not even on a medical register ... my choice / my right

So me not explaining my real reasons for my choices ... means you have no right to say my decisions are in error and doing so means you are ignorant ... Ignorant of my real reasons which I will not share with you ...

I apologise if I mis lead you to conclude what you have ... but again my real reasons for my choices have nothing to do with any anti vaxxer campaign ... and those reasons I am not prepared to share with you as they would only ignite further controversy ... and would be way off topic

So again with respect and my further explanation of why I am not an anti vaxxer or a pro vaxxer ... I agree to diagree

If your choice is secret then why do you post misinformation about vaccines?
Strange.