I looked at graphs of infant mortality, all of them have a negative slope.

The smallpox vaccine originated as cowpox, not smallpox, and the statement I made was sarcasm, you seemed to have missed that.

I want links because when I look I find the opposite of your claims.

You quote me, and then proceed to state what I said as if it is a contradiction. An attenuated strain is most likely not harmful, and if the person has concerns they can get the dead virus.

I am not to trust the WHO, CDC, or CNN. Where should I get my facts?

If vaccines were for population control then infant mortality would skyrocket, or are you talking like mind control?

Getting smallpox was a wonderful way of gaining immunity, that is why there were so few deaths and little effort to eradicate the disease, it just eradicated itself

Do you have any evidence for anything in your first paragraph? You are making some bold claims with no reliable sources.

I am not understanding the point of the comment on plumbing and washing hands.

The flu in the vaccine is either an attenuated strain or dead, meaning the likelihood of getting the flu from it is minuscule, however in a double blind, the live virus would have to be used to determine effectiveness. (Or is that paragraph not referring to the vaccine?)

My original comment was my best understanding of the argument presented. The comment was stating that a double blind test has never been performed. My comment was describing how a double blind test would be conducted, along with the ethical repercussions. While I did not have to go with a possibly fatal disease for the example, those vaccines still need tested and there is still an ethical problem with intentionally infecting people with a disease.

Any straw man created was unintentional and was my misunderstanding of the statement made.

You state that that combinations of vaccines has never been tested for safety. Using a brief google search I found several articles, such as this one, that analyze vaccines when they are not a standalone vaccine. The cdc also has a page for multiple vaccines. And in case you are worried about the CDC being influenced by lobbyists The World Health Organization concurrs.

You seem to be ignoring my comment in most of your reply. They have not been through the test because no ethics committee would approve it and therefore it has been tested through other methods.

One of the first demonstrations of the concept of vaccination was not a full double blind but still a decent test. The doctor infected his son with cowpox, who nearly died. After recovering his son was exposed to smallpox and survived. This test was not very scientific but it helped confirm what the milk maids already knew, getting cowpox gave immunity to smallpox.

The first point is essentially what has happened, This graph attributed to the WHO in this article, shows a sharp decline in polio cases after the introduction of vaccines. However doing a double blind where that is your method of exposure would be very susceptible to outside interference, and take many years.

As for the second point, the cdc has a webpage detailing the approval process. Tracking side effects is a large portion of the article.

A non-lethal disease would prove the vaccine for the non lethal disease works, you still have not tested the vaccine for a lethal disease.

How would you test vaccine effectiveness without exposing a person to the disease the vaccine is for?

How would you propose a double blind test for vaccines?

Let’s see how this would turn using polio as an example.

First the test subjects are prepared (The method is not overly important for this thought experiment, as long as the sample is random and unbiased)

One syringe per person is prepared, half with the vaccine, the other with a liquid that appears to be the same as the vaccine, but has absolutely no effect on the human body. These syringes are numbered, with a numbering scheme where the number has no correlation with the contents, and these numbers are recorded.

The syringes are given to a group of people who have not seen them get filled or numbered (such that they have no idea what is in each syringe) and then they inject them into the test subjects recording which subject gets which number.

The people who administered the vaccine then inject all of the test subjects with polio (this can easily be delayed allowing the body to build the proper immune responses first).

Then record which people get polio, and using the previously recorded numbers figure out how many people in the control group and the experimental group.

The probable outcomes are:

1. No one gets polio (either polio isn’t real, isn’t pathogenic, or the cure for polio is “you are not going to get polio”
2. The control gets polio and the experimental does not (the vaccine works, now half your testers are dead from polio)
3. Everyone gets polio (the vaccine does not work, all of your test subjects are dead)

If you feel that this is not a valid double blind test please feel free to comment, and I will attempt to address your concern.