Then publish the data and parse it by age cohort. The data should speak for itself. Although, I have to admit, based on the past few years I would not trust anything published by the CDC and FDA.
And don't you think that requiring children to receive 50+ shots is beyond the pale?
How can you be certain that they don't cause anything amiss? Particularly if the results aren't tracked? We can't possibly know that the vaccines might not cause cancer cells to grow in the recipient. And since vaccines are often grown in different animals (mice, etc), we can't be sure if the vaccines might not carry cross species contaminants to the recipient.
Based on the past few years, I'm not buying the 'trust us, we know more than you' wave of the hand by the Medical community. They destroyed decades of trust (well deserved, or not) in a record short period of time.
Let's be honest, mkay? I provide references to support the specific scientific points I make. Do you read the references? Have you ever followed a link to a real research or review paper and read it for yourself? Do you even read the links to informational articles that aren't published in the scientific literature? If you take the time to read the references for yourself, you should be able to quickly ascertain if I am lying or describing the science accurately.
The fact that the average life span was less than 40 years before vaccines were introduced and is now over 70 years should pretty much speak for itself. According to this article, Life expectancy (from birth) in the United States, from 1860 to 2020*, life expectancy rose from 39.4 years in 1860 to 78.9 years in 2020. The primary reason for this is vaccines, since the major cause of death prior to them was infectious disease. Because of Covid, however, the life expectancy has dropped. I cannot find any recent articles, but in mid 2022, it had dropped by 1.5 years. COVID-19 deaths tied to US life expectancy drop.
The median age of cancer diagnosis is 66 years, meaning that half of all diagnoses occur before this age and half after. Cancer Incidence Rates by Age. If you scroll down to the "Cancer Cases by Age Groups" section, the table clearly shows that the rate of cancer diagnosis goes up significantly at age 45.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the bulk of cancer diagnoses take place after age 45, but historically, life expectancy was less than 40 years, cancer rates did go up when vaccination programs increased life expectancy. Vaccines cause longer life, which increases risk of cancer. The first vaccine (against smallpox) was introduced in 1796.
And don't you think that requiring children to receive 50+ shots is beyond the pale? How can you be certain that they don't cause anything amiss?
No, I don't think that using children's own immune systems to protect them from deadly diseases that used to kill half of all children is "beyond the pale." And I can be certain they don't cause anything amiss because I understand the immune process. Vaccines do not actually do anything, but the immune system sees them as if they are a real pathogen. And the immune system reacts accordingly. A person who is immunocompromised can receive vaccines, but without immune function, vaccines are no different than saline injections.
Let me explain a bit about antigens, because I see that the number of antigens is used by professional antivaxxers to scare people who really don't know what an antigen is. An antigen is any protein that the immune system recognizes as foreign and can produce a specific antibody, T-cell, and B-cell response to. Many vaccines have been refined greatly, such that they only contain the antigen that will induce the formation of protective antibodies. For example, the pertussis vaccine used to contain killed Bordetella pertussis. This organism contains over 1,000 proteins and 99 lipids, all of which are potential antigens: Deep longitudinal multi-omics analysis of Bordetella pertussis cultivated in bioreactors highlights medium starvations and transitory metabolisms, associated to vaccine antigen biosynthesis variations and global virulence regulation. However, newer pertussis vaccines contain only 2 or 5 antigens. Thus, the number of antigens dropped by over 1,000 when using the new acellular vaccines. Like the immunity against many other pathogens, pertussis immunity drops over time, so periodic boosters are needed. It is always a good idea for pregnant women and people around them to get a pertussis booster to protect the baby.
And since vaccines are often grown in different animals (mice, etc), we can't be sure if the vaccines might not carry cross species contaminants to the recipient.
Vaccines actually are not grown in animals. Some are grown in animal cells, but none are grown in animals. As for "cross-species contaminents", you are exposed to those all the time. All of that food you keep eating is chock full of proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids which can and do enter your blood. Have you started developing cow traits because you ate steak last week?
Based on the past few years, I'm not buying the 'trust us, we know more than you' wave of the hand by the Medical community.
Oh, that's funny. The medical science community is extremely open about our work. The Pubmed database contains the references for scientific papers published all over the world since the 1700s or maybe earlier. Most of these references contain an abstract (summary) of the paper and a link to the paper. These papers are all accessible by the general public, although some journals have a paywall. If you don't think that something the medical/scientific community tells you is true, you can always look it up and read the research for yourself. If, for example, the methodology, analysis, or conclusions of Efficacy and Safety of an mRNA-Based RSV PreF Vaccine in Older Adults are wrong or flawed, you should be able to determine that by reading the paper.
But you know who says "Trust us, we know more than you"? Charlatans. Quacks who run websites and sell fake supplements and devices. Professional antivaxxers who keep deluging any media outlet that will allow them with highly emotional fearmongering. Next time you read one of those, pay attention to the language used. It is designed to evoke emotion and deactivate logical thought processes. Often, they refer vaguely to some study that was done somewhere, giving only enough detail that someone who is expert in finding their way around the scientific literature can find it. Sometimes, they fabricate references or modify real references to make them difficult to find. Once in a while, they link to a real reference, but if you read it, you will see that the authors of the study, who actually designed, carried out, and analyzed the research, came up with conclusions that are opposite what the antivaxxers told you they found. But you will choose to believe the quacks because they engage your emotions, rather than the scientists who describe everything as objectively as possible.