Comment: Okay? Why is there no mechanism proposed?

(See in situ)

Okay? Why is there no mechanism proposed?

The article mentions the heavy metals, but ignores that most vaccines no longer contain mercury.

Why is no explanation offered? Do anti-vaccine people not care? Are people not interested in evaluating the validity of experiments that supposedly confirm our prejudices?

Just because anti-vaccine advocates claim that vaccines are neither safe nor effective does not make it so. This article is propaganda. These numbers are cherry-picked. One study only had 245 participants. This is an EXTREMELY small sample size to study disease.

This reminds me of drug war propaganda. "Drugs are bad m'kay, here is half assed propaganda research. Vaccines are bad. If you disagree you are a shill for Big Pharma."

** oh yeah and one of the most close-minded, intolerant groups when it comes to scrutiny is the natural health crowd. I get down voted and name called and rarely does anyone even attempt to have a scientific debate. Scientific evidence is often incompatible with natural health beliefs.

***If any of you down voters can offer an intelligent explanation of why vaccinations directly lead to an increase in other diseases, I will donate 10 bucks to an anti-vaccine group. Let's talk about immunology.