Love ya Mom, but you are always so full of yourself that I just feel obligated to point out the errors you make.
I know that you are trying to be clever (or something) here, but the fact is that I've been posting on FR for about 17 years now. People actually do recognize my expertise. What you cannot possibly know is that they PM me sometimes specifically because of that expertise. If their physician can't explain what's going on, they know they can ask me and I'll explain in terms that they understand. So cut out the attempt to be sarcastic, I doubt you'll get anywhere with it.
Was there some reason that you left out toxoid vaccines which protect against the toxins made by the pathogen and do not contain the pathogen itself (killed or attenuated) or proteins extracted from the pathogen?
You should have probably looked up the definition of "toxoid" before posting that. A toxoid is a detoxified toxin extracted from a pathogen. A toxin is a poisonous protein. Toxins can be extracted directly from the pathogen and deactivated (e.g. diphtheria toxin) or they can be genetically modified to be non-toxic and grown in an organism like E. coli. And I very specifically was not trying to cover every vaccine type, but to convey an idea of what vaccines are to an audience that is not scientists.
Not true in the case of shingles. Children vaccinated against chickenpox have an increased risk of shingles as adults. One of many cases where having (and surviving) a childhood disease leads to a more informed immune system.
Utter nonsense. If the chickenpox vaccine caused an increased risk of shingles, then shingles should have been exceedingly rare prior to the vaccine, and people who've had chickenpox wouldn't have to worry. The vast majority of shingles cases occur in people like me, who had to suffer chickenpox because there was no vaccine for it when I was a kid. If you have had chickenpox, you have the virus in your body--it never goes away. The vaccine has not been used for long enough to make any kind of determination on its effect on the incidence of shingles, but researchers expect to see a drop in the incidence of shingles as the vaccinated population ages.
Or how about the ability of tetanus immunizations to cause Antiphospholipid Syndrome?
So, "antiphospholipid syndrome" is a synonym for tetanus now? Somehow, I don't think so.
Barring manufacturing errors (which have happened), a vaccine is utterly incapable of causing the disease it is meant to prevent.
"In addition, the toxins from pathogens are detoxified when made into vaccines, so they do not and cannot have the same effect on the body that the actual pathogen has."
No Mom, the attenuated viruses produce less of their toxins but that does not mean they are "detoxified" as some of the toxins are still produced.
Ah, here I see that your problem with reading comprehension (which you have already amply demonstrated) runs into your lack of scientific knowledge, with disastrous result.
The toxins from pathogens are exactly that: toxins which have been extracted from pathogens and rendered non-toxic using biochemical methods. This is completely unrelated to the process used to make attenuated vaccines.
Sorry, I'm not even going to bother with that illogical and unscientific mess that is your "discussion" of the role of adjuvants. I see that in another post that you linked to mercola.com--which is as egregious a pseudoscience website as any. I've suspected for a while that you are an aficionado of pseudoscience, and now you have provided the proof.