Brilliant Turquesa. Use a scientific reference, an outdated one and with no epidemic as predicted in the 11 year old paper. Here's a more current paper debating those findings using more extensive data. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0060732
You're trying to use beliefs to shape the science. I recommend you use science to shape the beliefs.
Let me see if I get this straight. In my 'position post' I implied that most vaccines cause more benefit than harm (that is what generally means), and many members posted their opposition to that view. Let's be clear, if you oppose that view then you think that "the majority of vaccines cause more harm than benefit". I still can't possibly understand how parents think that way.
Unless people misinterpreted my post as meaning: "ALL vaccines cause more benefit than harm". That is certainly NOT what I said. So before judging my objectiveness, check the remarks made in the 'position post' including the comment on Gardasil. I hope you can understand the difference between objectiveness and neutrality, but I'm not holding my breath.
To be honest I for one understand the resistance of parents to varicella and influenza vaccines. Mainly because the benefits are not as big as the ones from other vaccines. But the serious risks with these two vaccines have a very low probability of occurring. I may not be running to the doctor to vaccinate my 2 year old for influenza (not required here), but I wouldn't hold it against parents who do.
Bakunin, why exactly are you here?
It doesn't make sense that you spent so much effort trying to insist that you are objective concerning the vaccine safety debate, when it's obvious that you're one of the strongest proponents of vaccines here--and one of the strongest attackers of those criticizing vaccine safety.
It doesn't make sense that you would misunderstand or worse, ignore every single valid point made by those who disagree with your narrow-minded views.
It doesn't make sense that you would pretend that those of us who disagree with you all share a particular position--of believing that vaccines harm more often than they help--when several who disagree with you have posted quite clearly that long-term adverse effects are not entirely known.
It doesn't make sense that anyone would consider your little survey here a valid study of anything when you'd managed to trigger the Militant-Pro-Vaxxer-Alert-Radar of so many here before you closed your survey.
It doesn't make sense that you're still here, trying to aggressively convince us that your views on vaccination are The Right Views.
It doesn't make sense that you imply that those who criticize vaccines would "hold it against" another parent their choice to vaccinate their child for influenza,
And it certainly doesn't make sense that you would say that, since reported adverse effects are lower in numbers than reported helpful effects, they are therefore acceptable, and that those whose children suffered serious damage from vaccines are an acceptable loss.
One has to wonder--if your child suffered a severe reaction to a vaccine for a disease that had very little chance of causing complications, would you proudly proclaim that your child's vaccine damage was acceptable, and that he "took one for the herd?"