Appeal to authority is still a fallacy.
You do not have to admit to being wrong, while still still being wrong.
That is 2 fallacies you have already committed. Only 1 single fallacy can cause human damage. If you were that precise, you would not be making these fallacies that can kill or cut life short.
If biologists understood vaccine effectivity and human illness, then biologists would simply take their own advice, and there would be little sick or overweight biologists, Doctors or nurses, compared to the norm. They would be the healthiest group of humans. Biologists would avoid heart disease, cancer and strokes, at the best levels in society.
The PhD micro biologist would not have a heart disease stent while others are healthy.
The biologist, Doctor or nurse know dangerously little about preventing illness, because it is also a science of psychology, economics and areas they understand little about.
The only stakeholder with a real incentive to remain healthy is the patient. The Doctor’s incentive is to sell harmful drugs. The Micro Biologist’s incentive is to create drugs.
Vaccines do not create long term immunity. Conversely, they create drug dependent, weaker descendents over the years, versus using true natural evolution for a healthy lineage.
And the desire for the last word is your third fallacy.
Oh, my. Such a miscomprehension of the logical fallacy. Appeal to authority is only invalid when the authority does not actually support the viewpoint or subject of the appeal. In my case, I not only am the authority, but I have substantial factual and evidentiary support from a large body of medical research and personal discussions with many other experts. Therefore, I commit no logical fallacy by "appealing to authority."
If biologists understood vaccine effectivity and human illness, then biologists would simply take their own advice, and there would be little sick or overweight biologists, Doctors or nurses, compared to the norm. They would be the healthiest group of humans. Biologists would avoid heart disease, cancer and strokes, at the best levels in society.
That is as big of a logical non sequitur as I have ever seen. For one thing, you seem to conflate infectious disease with all disease. The fact that I understand fully, for example, the etiology of measles and how to prevent it in no way prevents me from developing osteoarthritis which causes me a considerable amount of constant pain. Should I also point out that I fully understand the etiology of osteoarthritis, as well?
Understanding the causes of diseases, whether they are infectious, genetic, environmental, etc., is just one step in a very long process. Figuring out how to prevent, manage, or cure the disease takes much, much longer than simply understanding it. Furthermore, PhD level life scientists, physicians, and other health care professionals are just as susceptible to physical ailments as anyone else. Because we are, you know, human. The difference between us and other people is that we devote our lives to studying and treating illnesses.
The biologist, Doctor or nurse know dangerously little about preventing illness, because it is also a science of psychology, economics and areas they understand little about.
Once again, you produce a complete non sequitur. We actually do understand the role of psychology in the etiology of certain illnesses. This is why there are psychologists and psychiatrists in the medical professions. Did you know that there is a whole field of research psychology? Economics, on the other hand, is not a cause of any disease. A person's economic status affects whether they have access to health care, but is not a causative factor in the development of disease. (I can stick in here an observation that if the anti-vaxxers and other "alternative" medicine quacks were correct, then the people who live in third world conditions without access to health care and who eat only "natural" and "organic" foods should be the healthiest people in the world. But they are not.)
Vaccines do not create long term immunity. Conversely, they create drug dependent, weaker descendents over the years, versus using true natural evolution for a healthy lineage.
The vaccine schedules are determined by groups of experts who consider, among many factors, the length of immunity conferred by each vaccine. So, as a matter of medical practice, people are recommended to get revaccinated on a regular basis in order to keep up immunity. I must also point out that each vaccine must be considered independently of the others in terms of duration of immunity: measles vaccine, for instance, induces permanent immunity. Because of this, my medical record says that I am exempt from measles vaccination because the two doses I have received, one while in college, the other when I joined the Army, have rendered me immune as determined through a blood test.
As for your assertion that vaccines cause drug dependency, that is such a leap of illogic that I am not even going to try to dissect it.
And the desire for the last word is your third fallacy.
Um, okay. I do not like to leave untruths unchallenged. When people internalize untruths regarding medical matters, they endanger their health. My goal is to provide proper information to refute the untruths, so that people will not mistakenly believe the untruths. While people like you are so enamored of untruths, hooey, and woo that it is probably impossible to reach you with any factual information, most of the people who might read my posts are not in the same situation. I've been doing this for around 20 years; I'm not going to stop because an aficionado of quackery doesn't like it.
One last thing: if you wish to refute someone, you could do a lot better than what you did in this post. Smushing unrelated subjects into a fruitcake-like conglomerate does little except illustrate that your own thinking is muddled and disordered. Likewise, with making prodigious leaps of illogic.
I always find it amusing when people who cannot refute me on the facts then resort to hiding behind claims of logical fallacies which they barely understand.