Here are a couple of links below to sites with a lot of information.  There are numerous websites on the "dangers of vaccinations".  Sure, some of it might be "conspiracy" tactics...you have to just take the information you find feasible.  With all of the info out there, we each have to weed through the bull.  I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything, I am not a scientist...I can only read stuff, just like you.  As far as my nieces and nephews are concerned, let's just say this was simply a small study or survey:
 
There are 8 children (including my 2) and 4 sets of parents.  6 of the 8 have recieved vaccinations.  Out of the 6 vaccinated, all have had multiple ear infections, 2 have asthma, 2 have had their tonsils removed, and 2 have delayed speech and learning difficulties.  The 2 unvaccinated children have had none of these ailments or disorders. 4 of the vaccinated children have been born naturally and breastfed for a couple of years, and 2 of the unvaccinated children have also been born naturally and breastfed for a couple of years.  All children spend most of their time at home with their parents.

This is the kind of thing statistics come from.  I am NOT saying that vaccinations DEFINITELY caused any of these problems...it could be a number of things - their environment, genetics, diet...WHO KNOWS???  But, when my sister-in-laws have come to me and said "Why have your children never had ear infections?", and "What do you do to keep your children so healthy?", I answer them truthfully "I really don't know?  I don't vaccinate...maybe that's it?".  We can't rule it out as a possibility...even a very slight one.  As I said in my original post, that is the children I PERSONALLY know....I am well aware that there are many perfectly healthy vaccinated children (I was not one of them...I had to have a tonsillectomy and tubes put in my ears at 5-years old, because of constant ear infections and illness).  Dude, I KNOW that because my children are not vaccinated, there is a slight risk they could contract a disease, but I PERSONALLY feel the risks of vaccinations are greater.  I love these little angels so much, I can't imagine what I would do if anything ever happened to them.  I pray every day that they remain healthy, happy, intelligent children, and that they live long, full lives.

http://www.educate-yourself.org/vcd/
http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html

This is not the sort of thing statistics come from.

A piece of me died when you said that.

Now you're associating vaccines with developmental delay?  What about the Flynn effect, i.e. the gradual increase in average IQ over time?  A reasonable hypothesis might be that it has to do with vaccines allowing for uninterrupted growth given that illnesses can lead to failure to thrive at critical points in time.  You might even say that vaccines are making people smarter.

"a piece of me died when you said that" haha

Blonde Veg-head, there are a number of ways of coming up with statistics, but anecdotal evidence of people who all know each other is generally not where it comes from. A representative sample size is needed (not enough people in your example, and since you all know each other, it's not a good representation of your state/country/whatever group you're studying), and while sometimes case studies are used for research, they're not used for epidemiological statistics. For the incidence of a disease (or adverse reaction), you'd take the total number of cases out of the total number of susceptible individuals (in this case, probably young children who have been vaccinated). That's why the rates are so apparently low, but individual cases of adverse reactions do occur.

The educate-yourself site you posted I can't take seriously. I mean, I know the author is being serious, but there are allegations that the US government planned to force H1N1 vaccinations this past fall (never happened : /), and that the intent is population reduction (genocide).

For the second site, they post a number of myths/truths about vaccinations. One of the myths are that vaccines are safe. Looking at all this hysteria about vaccines, I think it's valuable to pretend that instead of "vaccines" it's saying "antibiotics." Is it true that ALL antibiotics are ALWAYS safe for EVERYONE? No. Does that mean that, in general, antibiotics are unsafe? No. Some people are more prone to reactions, some antibiotics have certain risks unique to them, and some older antibiotics are riskier or less effective than the newer ones. The same is true of vaccines.
In regards to pertussis, it says that one 2.5% of doctor's offices in NY confirmed that they report adverse reactions and deaths. And they are required by law to do so. What do they mean by confirmed? Did they send around a survey, and only one office responded? There is no citation for this finding. Also, the author mentions the high rate of adverse reactions for pertussis. The most common adverse reaction for every vaccine is a "site reaction," or swelling, itchiness, and pain at the injection site. Tetanus has a pretty high rate of that too, but on the other hand, nobody wants tetanus. Is it really that big of a deal that your arm hurts after an injection? But then the author says that, considering the evidence of the NY doctors, the number of deaths may over 1,000 (since 10% was the overall reporting rate), and then says that since 10 people die of pertussis annually, the vaccine is 100x "deadlier" than the disease. This is based on speculation. Isn't it more likely that the doctors reported adverse reactions would be reporting the deaths, rather than the rashes? And since only 10 people die of the disease per year, doesn't that mean that vaccination was successful? Should we stop vaccinating until the mortality rate from the actual disease goes higher than the speculated mortality rate from the vaccine? Do you think that the death from pertussis is 100% reported?
The author also brings up SIDS, and blames vaccines. But there are many explanations of SIDS, many with studies to back it up, and vaccines aren't one of them. The author refers to a drop in SIDS in Japan after raising the age of vaccination, but provides no citation. The author also says, that though there was a correlation between SIDS and vaccine administration, there was no relationship stated by the researchers. That's because correlation does not imply causation. Then, the author says another researcher said that vaccines account for half of SIDS... but the citation is something written by a PhD that does not appear to be published anywhere, without any peer review.
I could go on but... why would these independent, 3rd party researchers have a vested interest in showing no relationship between vaccinations and child mortality? They don't work for Pfizer/etc. And if raising the age of vaccination is just as good in terms of protection with none of the effects of SIDS, why would vaccine manufacturers even care then? They'd just get their money later. There's no incentive to kill kids by adverse reactions or SIDS.
The author also questions whether antibodies actually confer immunity. What does confer immunity then? Magic? Antioxidants? The author mentions a disease, hypogammaglobulinemia (which s/he does not spell right -_- and refers to it as an anemia), where there is no production of Ig yet there is immunity. I can't find the source for this one... but, Igs aren't the only thing that confer immunity, there's also innate immunity and T cells. We didn't know before how extensive innate immunity is, or that there even was memory T cells, but in certain circumstances, either of these could potentially clear an infection.
Another thing the author mentions which indicates lack of understanding of how the immune system works is that once exposed to an antigen, an immune cell is "committed" to that antigen. that's mostly true, but it doesn't mean the immune system can't react against other things. When your body is exposed to an antigen, whatever B cell that matches the antigen the best multiplies A LOT, and those copies undergo extra mutation to help fit to the antigen even better. Ultimately, one copy fits the best, and it ultimately makes the antibody (Ig) that helps clear the infection. However, there are still all your B cells left. And B cells are capable of making a match to pretty much any antigen imaginable. Saying that one B cell matching an antigen somehow interferes with the whole pool of B cells is like saying that, by one person choosing a career as an astronaut, no one else in the country can ever have a job. Ever. As anything.
I looked for something on the Japan/smallpox vaccination problem that was mentioned on the website, but couldn't find anything. The only source is the source provided, which sounds like a pretty... biased... book. About Pasteur misleading medicine or something. Yeah.

O.K., dear, I found some articles directly linking ear infections and other common illnesses to vaccinations (the first one gives their take on it straight up).  Take them as you will...I did not write these articles.  I personally agree, but I am already sure you will not.  There is no point in continuing this debate, I have answered your questions and given you the information you asked for.  If you would like to continue the debate, let it be with the people who have written these articles.

http://www.vaclib.org/links/ears.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20825107/
http://www.sayingnotovaccines.com/
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccines.htm

None of them are very convincing if you know the context and understand the science.

The 2nd one doesn't even support your point.  Did you read it?

However, you're not going to debate it, so I guess we'll just leave it be?

Exactly!  We see the world differently...there is no point in this debate.  You will never believe what I believe, and I will never believe what you do.  This does not affect you, and it does not affect me.  And yes, I read the second article - I posted it in reference to other vaccine controversy.  I have repeatedly said I am NOT trying to convince YOU...this is what I agree with.  Debating is probably one of the silliest ways to waste time...it doesn't accomplish a thing.  How has what we have been doing for 2 days helped make anything better in the world?  We could argue this until the day we die...and people will continue to argue it after our deaths...and still not one thing would have been accomplished.  The largest majority of the country thinks that eating meat is good for you, and that you need cows milk for calcium and strong bones.  Most will never understand the mindset of a vegan, and arguing with them is not going to make them see it our way.  We will never all agree on everything.  You trust the government, and assume vaccines are safe...I do not.  The links I posted are not WHY I chose to not vaccinate.  I made my decision based on my gut feelings (and also my husbands, and he is a very intelligent degreed Engineer, who does NOT make decisions lightly, and if you know the mind of an engineer, they are considered "logical" thinkers).....I just happened to find other people out there who agree.  What I don't understand, is why you think it is so important for me to prove to you why MY family chooses to do what it does?  I'm sure you make many choices in your life that I don't agree with...and you know what?  I don't care.  It's your life.  Live it, enjoy it!  Spend less time being concerned with others lives, and more with your own.

You guys are ridiculous...I wasn't saying that statistics come from MY PERSONAL STUDY....I was referring to the fact that to find statistcal information, they gather people (yes, of course many more than I have), to find a common link.  No point in talking to negative people who take things out of context to put people down.  Let's just agree to disagree, because that's as good as it's going to get.  As my original post said, I haven't posted much on these forums....and NOW I KNOW WHY.  I have much greater things going on in my life than this.  Our time on this earth is numbered, and I want to spend it doing things I enjoy.  And, as you can see, debating is NOT something I enjoy.  :P  ;D

No need to condescend, sweetie pie honey baby dear.  I'll take a look at the links you suggested.  See, that was easy.

I try to look at things scientifically, since I have a research background.  I can assure you I will give them a fair chance.

Well, thank you for the endearing names.  See...I knew we could get along.  ;)  (I honestly do not expect you to agree with the articles...I only sent them so you could see that people link those things together....and that I was not just "pulling it out of my butt"  :P).  Gee...I gotta tell you, as much as I hate this forum...I can't seem to stay away.  What is UP with that?  :-\  ~sigh~ Life before debate was so peaceful... ;D  

Yeah, I don't find those reputable for the reasons outlined by dienekes/fb above.  And I defer to fb because she and I tend to agree on this issue.  She already said everything I wanted to say about it.  

It's not about "seeing the world differently," vhb.  Facts are facts, regardless of whether you choose to see them differently.  It's about using sound reasoning/science to inform yourself, and not making decisions based on a gut whim.

ô_õ

ô_õ

i kno rite?

bvh, you are inconsistent.  You were talking about how you based your decision on a LOT (in your words) of research and logic.  Now you are saying you choose faith. 

*headdesk*

No, I specifically said that the articles are not WHY I made my choice (look back at what I said), but I DID do a lot of research from both sides, because I wanted to feel comfortable with my decision.  You can have faith, and still want information.  My ORIGINAL choice to ever look into it at all, was because as I said, I did not feel comforable with vaccinations.  Feeling comfortable with my choices are driven by what I feel is right....my faith.  And, that is exactly why I continued to tell you in the beginning, that I was not here to debate you, that I was only here in support of the others, and that I have chosen to do what I think is right for my family...I felt that was easier than getting into a religious debate, as well.  That is not inconsistent at all.  YOU said that it's about how you choose to see facts...and someone of faith tends to see them differently...which is why I said that we see the world differently.  IF you do not have faith, you will never understand what effect it has in every aspect of your life.  Faith guides me, and if I feel the need to get more information on where that feeling is taking me, that is what I do.  When I found that I was not the only person out there with negative feelings about vaccines, and that so many other people had similar ideas and theories, I felt comfortable with my choice.  The possible side effects that the doctors provide, alone, was enough to certainly have me concerned.  Obviously, you guys just do not want to get along.  You know, it IS possible to have a discussion without being rude and putting people down.  You have been very critcal, just because my beliefs are different from yours.  I can't understand it...I prefer to get along with people.  And, even in a debate, you can be kind.

Obviously, you guys just do not want to get along.  You know, it IS possible to have a discussion without being rude and putting people down.  You have been very critcal, just because my beliefs are different from yours.  I can't understand it...I prefer to get along with people.  And, even in a debate, you can be kind.

I was responding to your objections to vaccines and the articles you posted. I am not looking to put anyone down, but I feel it necessary to interject when I think someone has misinterpreted biological science or is restating misinformation.
I'm not sure if the "beliefs" you are referring to are your religious ones or your ones about vaccines, but in the case of vaccines, it's hard to have beliefs about something about which there is verifiable evidence. It might be my own personal thing, but I don't think there can be a belief vs. fact.