Quoted from Wickerman2:Seems like another either/or straw man argument. Of course, skeptics aren't always mistaken BUT we aren't talking about something that's done on a whim or hasn't been vetted scientifically. This isn't a brand new, experimental theory. It's intellectually dishonest to frame the debate that way.
Science isn't always right but it's a helluva lot more right than random bar stool musings when it comes to health. They've been refining the vaccine process for decades. Cherry picking negative examples and ignoring the vast majority of positive outcomes doesn't seem "fair", right?
If you want to go au naturel, we could go back to when the average life expectancy was in the 40's for people in the early 1900's because that's essentially the "let nature take it's course" argument. Besides the fact that the genie is out of the bottle with "nature". We have altered the way we deal with nature to compensate for all sorts of things that left unchecked would infect and kill us.
Talk about being intellectually dishonest. What do you think was happening with improving sanitation and hygiene? I know many people (including children) going au naturel and they are not at all succumbing to any of these diseases. In fact, the unvaccinated that I know are healthier than those that trust and obey the kleptocratic medical dictatorship.
If vaccination was non-profit, I'd be more likely to trust those promoting it.