I am curious what the people of HN think when they see videos with factual information such as https://youtu.be/zncuOv9VBxw https://youtu.be/zncuOv9VBxw or in a

I am curious what the people of HN think when they see videos with factual information such as https://youtu.be/zncuOv9VBxw https://youtu.be/zncuOv9VBxw or in a more playful manor: https://youtu.be/f4U5bNQuOl8 https://youtu.be/f4U5bNQuOl8 Do you just shrug it off or ignore it? Or do you do some research (and what do you find?)? One of the biggest red flags I see is all the lawsuits against vaccine makers in the 1980's. Out of fear of running out of money, pharma companies lobbied the government into making the vaccine court. Now a vaccine maker has no liability, any issues from a vaccine has to go through the vaccine court and settlements are paid out with tax payer money, the marker does not have to be involved. How is that not an issue or red flag? If Ford lobbied the government for protection against lawsuits from accidental deaths due to faulty parts in a car would you still buy a car from Ford? And what if you put your kids in that car? How would that not be child endangerment? But yet this is how we treat vaccine makers. Or what about the fact that "wild" polio in India has been reduced to only a few cases per year while "vaccine derived paralytic" polio is over 50k+ cases per year? Its arguable that wild polio was much more safer. Or the fact that diphtheria and pertussis are a bacterial disease (not viral) and the vaccine simply makes one immune to the toxins that the bacteria produce, thus enabling one to carry the disease symptom free and spread it to others unaware? Or, going back to money, for every new vaccine regiment that is prescribed a company then profits over a billion dollars every year thereafter? Or how about the fact that a vaccine does not work by injecting a "dead virus" into your body. A dead virus offers no threat to your body and thus your immune system will not fight against it. To make a vaccine produce antibodies (debatable what role antibodies provide to immunity), you then have to introduce other ingredients along with it to cause the body to go into a state of response. And to continually inject these ingredients into your body to perpetually heighten your immune response, would it not be logical to see that as bad and causing an increase in allergies and other autoimmune diseases? None of this seems to be studied. Or how about the fact that infant immunity was once established through breast feeding (which few do now out of "convenience") yet vaccine derived immunity is not spread through breast milks (thus leading to our current heightened infant infection rates)? Trying to find actual scientific studies is also rather difficult. There is apparently no funding outside of what the vaccine makers provide for their own results/benefit. The only time a vaccine ever provides negative info on a vaccine is when they are marketing a "new and improved" version. I find that somewhat laughable. These to me seem like red flags. And as long as there are apparent side effects, I don't see what right a government would have to force one to do something that is possibly dangerous (and against their will at that). You certainly can't say it is "for the greater good" as it has already been shown that vaccines shed and infect others (read: the vulnerable). This is usually stated right on the vaccine insert. I'm sure they'll remove that from the public view as well someday... edit: I ask if you down vote me, please explain why. edit: Also, note I have not stated whether I am pro or anti vaccine, so don't judge me based on that. But if you visit any anti-vaccine resources, the above is almost verbatim what you will see. And I am certainly curious what the argument against this is. Something other than "you're an idiot" as most anti-vax arguments point to "research" of some sort that certainly shows something other than 100% safety.