Whenever I argued with them they would invariably claim to be familiar with hundred of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the dangers. When pressed on the issue, one of them finally did dig up this trove of papers for me. Because I'm an idiot, I actually did carefully review and refute them, so I can say from personal experience that the "orders of magnitude" adage is pretty true. Of course, after admitting that maybe these papers weren't the best materials to prove his point, he decided to pivot to another website that would surely contain all the "proof" I need. There is no arguing. They have a heap of bullshit and don't intend to make their beliefs based on critical analysis.
If you're curious about how I wasted several evenings reading anti-vax papers you can read my analysis here [1]. It's almost invariably about a disproven link between thimerosal and autism spectrum disorder or random non-scientists hucksters trying to sell crystal healing powers or some horse shit.
[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19IFB_2dzq6Gb5z6igjsIEFMh...
But there is a fundamental problem, you are looking at numbers gleaned from 'studies' and IMHO mostly they revel nothing unless the study was done carefully, intelligently and with integrity. All these traits are missing at large in the scientific community. A broken clock is correct twice a day. Also factor in politics, something which I did not early on, most of us with a technical bent of mind are naively un-aware of this.
Regarding autism + vaccines, I never looked into it. But I have looked at (and mostly listened to people who I think are credible have dug up numbers from the CDC website) and my conclusion is that for most part they are generally useless, perhaps 1 or 2 vaccines out of the 30 or so are truly effective. There are also instances of clear harm where populations what were vaccinated fell ill and the ones that we not vaccinated did not fall ill. Finally anecdotally, the people who most certainly get the flu are the ones that were vaccinated. Ofcourse people will dismiss that by saying anecdotes are not data.
Where ever a vaccine did appear to have succeeded, there were other factors in play. A clear case of (well-intentioned) people who drink their own kool-aid believe that their efforts are paid off.
The point that I'm trying to make is this - to the extent I have looked I see no clear benefit, and in some cases there appears to be a clear harm. So why bother taking it?
>Vaccines are or are not harmful?
My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful. These are ball park figures based on fair amount of reading/listening, I could be wrong. But it begs the question, why should it be so hard to see clear benefits? One has only so much time to investigate these things, I did it years back and have moved on. My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer. ( it used to be the other way round)
Also don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide and Vioxx - should give you a glimpse of the how murky the industry is. These are IMO not isolated incidents. That should at least tip you off in the right direction.
Last, but not the least - if a vaccine has clear benefits ( based on broader set of parameters that I would consider) , I would take it, who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?
The elimination/near elmination of polio? rubella? measles? Soon COVID? Etc..
" the burden is proof is on the vaccine to show that is near completely safe"
They do.
"My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong."
Yes, completely wrong.
"don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide ..."
There are thousands upon thousands of drugs. Some are going to fail, many will be misrepresented. Like everything in life. It doesn't mean they don't work.
"My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer."
This is irrationally conspiratorial, indicative of a broader problem.
"who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?"
The above statements are not so 'right of mind' unfortunately.
There are no Lizard People trying to control us, and most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level. There are some systematic failures (i.e. Walmart over-subscribing oxycontin) but most of us are not surprised when that happens.
Approved vaccines are overwhelmingly more effective than they are detrimental, i.e. the 'balance of outcomes' is monumentally positive.
All of them have alternative explanations not found in mainstream media. ( and no I won't put forth the material for you. You will have to look for it)
>>"My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong."
>Yes, completely wrong.
So I presume you looked/read at many of these vaccines closely, way beyond what is found is mainstream media?
>most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level.
This is where I have changed my mind over the years. People may be sincere but not competent.
With certain aspects of medicine/health it is relatively easy to verify, if one listens to the renegade doctors, experiment with diets. ( the US dietary guideline pyramid - can actually be inverted, I'm not kidding)
There is a larger point I'm trying to make: it's easy to believe the media, no work is needed, but to investigate take time/effort/perseverance which I have done to the best possible extent.
I don't normally do this, but based on keywords you've inexplicably crammed into your HN profile and a cursory reading of your own websites and posts that you've linked to from there, you fit the bill exactly. Paranoiac, self-congratulatory screeds about the deluded masses that you've somehow managed to emerge from as some kind of enlightened individualist. Seriously, consider how much effort you are exerting to construct this elaborate justification for your conditions. You would be much better off if you just focused on improving your station in life without positioning yourself as John Galt amongst a world gone astray.