Look at your source and see if they are credible.

first they say that vaccines contain mercury which they do not they contain thimerosal (sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate) that is not mercury. Further in the body it is metabolized to ethylmercury which is still not mercury. It still has a whole ethy group. There are entire compounds that by slight deviation can mean the difference between fatal and essential.

While ethylmercury has some links to not being that great for you, the fact that the article is so grossly negligent to call a compound mercury (because everyone knows it is bad stuff) tends to hint that their is either a political agenda or that are looking to scare up a story.

Further, thimerosal was removed from all children vaccines in the 90's so even if there was a link, there is no valid reason today to not vaccinate you child.

Personally, (if it where mercury) I would much rather expose my child to even a small dose of mercury to prevent a return to the infant mortality rates of a century ago.

Can you imagine a time when it was unusual for a family to not loose a child. Ponder that for a moment, then weight it against the risks. Up until vaccination technology, a family would almost assuredly loose a child in their lifetime.

My grandmother lost her older sister at 10 years old to a vaccinatable disease. That was the reality back then The math says it all, something changed infant mortality rates and medical science has testable reproducible results that say they where responsible for that change, until the witch doctors can provide reproducible results, I am sticking with the guys that are using science.

You mean the article that the submitted article explicitly calls out as unbelievably shoddy, and for which Rolling Stone has issued multiple corrections?

I know the science in the article is wrong. But if you actually read the article, it isn't really about the science, it's about the CDC hiding data from the public. And this has not been challenged, in fact the CDC admits it.

So I ask again, how are you supposed to make an educated decision based on facts, when the CDC admits that they have no qualms about hiding the facts from you.

I think you said it yourself. You've seen a ton of evidence that the vaccines are safe (and presumably very little evidence otherwise). If you believe they are credible sources then you should make your decision based on the available evidence, not some worry that the CDC has other evidence that they are hiding from you.

Do you have evidence that the CDC is hiding data from the public in this case?

As I said yesterday, the behavior of individuals within organizations is largely the result of systemic forces. This much we know from psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior. (C.f. the Milgram experiments, the Asch conformity tests, the Stanford prison experiment, etc.)

Clearly different cases are different, but making a completely new decision based on each new case shows a misunderstanding of human behavior; as long as our systemic environments are the same, we will tend to produce the same sorts of behaviors.

So the burden of proof shouldn't be on me here to prove the CDC is covering up information, the burden of proof should be on them to show that they've changed the systemic structure of their organization since 2000 in a way that promotes transparency and accountability. And I haven't seen any evidence of this.

I'm not saying these vaccines are necessarily dangerous, they're probably not. All I'm suggesting is that if you try to interpret history and make decisions without using the lenses of sociology, psych, and OB then you're bound to find yourself over in Iraq looking for WMDs, boycotting France, putting poisons into your body, etc.

You could have just said "no," instead of flailing your hands around.

"I know the science in the article is wrong."

And that's when I stop paying attention.

There's a good chance the errors in the original article were introduced by amateurs trying to redo the science after the CDC covered up the original data. Which is sort of my whole point.

Well, honestly, even if you broke it down in terms of one disease versus another, I think vaccines still take the cake:

Don't vaccinate: Might get polio, whooping cough, meningitis, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus or superflu. All of which are either deadly or crippling diseases, in some cases even when treated.

Vaccinate: Might become autistic. Which is a serious behavioral disorder.

And of course the comparison is even easier when you remember that vaccines have no link with autism.

There is no such thing as superflu and you will not get polio.

And you won't become autistic if you do vaccinate.

Stop vaccinating on a massive scale, and polio will be back. It's not gone yet and can still be found in Africa, India, and the Middle East.