I will add a few extra comments without focusing too much on details of some of the posts above.
Overall some of the ones who have posted here against vaccines, are implying that their thinking is outside of the box and have presented examples about doctors beliefs in the past about germs and what not. In other words that antivaccine is a group that may lead to novel ideas in science. But make no mistake, resistance to vaccines IS NOT NEW. Ever since the beginning of vaccine programs there has been groups opposing the use of vaccines. So no, being anti vaccine is not new or novel, only the reasons for being anti-vaccine has evolved. Anti-vaccine groups share many of the same traits of groups that oppose or opposed science in other times: the Hadron collier, or stem cell research, or GMOs, or that Earth is not the center of the universe, or that the Earth is not flat.
I placed GMOs above as the most interesting example of a current time debate. Most people focus on side effects that no scientific evidence can back. However, the companies that claim GMOs have some benefits (such as cheaper food for consumers) actually HAVE questionable evidence as well. This makes the debate quite silly. Sure, you should be told whether you're consuming GMO food, but it's a matter of choice. Neither side has effectively backed some of their claims with data. THAT'S WHAT BEING OBJECTIVE IS ALL ABOUT!!
Returning to anti change groups. Many here will point the finger back at the ones they so call "pro-vax" as being anti change. But even when I presented benefits AND risks (see previous post yesterday), not ONE of the attackers admitted that vaccines have their benefits, NOT ONE. Instead I was either misquoted, or referenced to anecdotal evidence, or presented with faulty reasoning or insulted. When someone FINALLY provided scientific evidence against vaccines, it was based on very low quality journals that don't even make the list of top medicine journals and scientist don't refer to them in their work (because the quality of work is so low). Actually, one of the journals, HAS NO PEER REVIEW, just an editor. Ironically, at least two of the journals I was referred to by one of the antivaccine people come from a publisher that taximom5 was accusing of having financial conflicts. Actually, taximom5 used the true financial conflict news the wrong way. She used it to accuse the lancet of being influenced by financial conflicts while in fact the news said that a publisher had some financial conflicts (there's a difference).
Here are some traits of groups that resist change:
1. they refute any benefit of something different.
2. attack in packs (check all the likes in the posts here of people that think alike. They are liking each others posts)
3. use faulty reasoning: contradictions, no logic, no real criticism
4. they don't ask questions about the other point of view. Instead they lecture (I ask multiple times for scientific evidence. But nobody ever asked me for any, I provided it, they didn't ask for more, simply didn't accept it)
5. mistrust science (Instead of believing what must doctors say, they believe doctors with no solid reputation or valid scientific argument)
6. Base there thinking in conspiracies
This post is intended as a request to the anti vaccine people who have posted on this thread. Please step out of your box, admit there's positives and negatives to BOTH SIDES. And the best thing you can do is to STAY informed.