>>Raises hand<<
Plenty of people agree with those webistes.
I am totally unvaccinated and my family have been for at least 6 generations on my mothers side including myself and my son. I come from a family that has very few health problems and where people die of old age. I dont put it all down to simply not vaccinating, but I certainly dont think we'd be better off if we had been!

Of course there are different opinions on disease theories and not everyone agrees (or in my case particularly cares since I never get sick anyway.) I feel that some of the theories / various books and articles ive read make sense though. certainly when i look at my family and the lack of sickness I do doubt the pro-vaccine arguement.

Having read the ingredients of what goes into a vaccine I personally think it makes very good sense that vaccines supresses the immune system. Theres crap in there that I wouldnt want to even touch. I personally believe if I dont think somethings safe to touch or eat its not safe to inject either. (-:

There is probably an element of what you described on the don't-vaccinate side of the issue. How much? Is never easy to know. I can say this with a fair amount of confidence: a good amount of present medical belief is based upon long-ago work attributed to Pasteur, especially as it pertains to the so-called "germ theroy". What establishment's version of history tends to hide is the fact that much of Pasteur's work was plagiarzed, in particular, plagiarized from Beuchamp, which Pasteur then retroffited and molded to more closely match the theory he had already pre-supposed in his mind in the first place. Just like Hollywood mogels, industry leaders can make a star out of nobody so long as that nobody is compliant and willing to compromise in order to attain their ambitions. My impression is that Pasteur was one such compliant, ambitious person.

Best a person can do is try to be self-informed. But, for sake of argument, lets say the case you stated is close to 100% correct. What, in your mind, makes that side any different from the establishment view, the orthodox view that is obviously in favor of vaccinating to the extent that they presently want people to believe they are required by law to accept vaccinations? Seems to me that all things being equal, this still leaves a person in the middle, stuck. People stuck in the middle can either go with the herd, flip a coin, or do the more difficult - try to become self-informed; that's half the equation of informed-consent! A real & present component of this present atmosphere speaks to the situation where people cannot be self informed in large part because much of the relevant negative information has been obfuscated, some of it twisted and morphed into false positive. So the mandate ends up being, you should blindly do what the government & orthodoxy, through the media, is pushing rather than question, with the implication being - because the mandate comes from a massive, modern, corporate institution supposedly steeped in scholarly, historical, legal wisdom. The establishment has it's own sordid history too, at least it's there to be found for anyone willing to look for it and find it.

Just to pull one of many long-ago influences out of the air that to this day some 60-70 years later still has much sway in the establishment orthodox medical field, look into the Flexner report. Rather than tell you what you should discover from a fair study of that, I'll at least give you the chance to come to that conclusion on your own rather than poisoning your thoughts or biasing you ahead of time.

There are few easy answers, and it doesn't help that there are lots of people out there making difficult answers more difficult to find.

i agree with you mcmillan. ive done research on vaccinations; the logic behind vaccinations are evident. denying them is like denying the holocaust.
the principles that govern a vaccination are complementary to our mhc. what is foreign induces proliferation of B-cells. these subsequently form memory cells and this is what provides us with the rapid recognition of invasion. had to abridge process work time