Vaccinations; recent developments

[Tink]

Does this mean that you are not going to answer the questions I posed?  You have made a series of assertions.  My questions are directed at probing as to whether those assertions have any logical foundation in fact.  If all you can do is blow smoke, that's fine.  I have a fan.

It all depends who asks.
Is it you MarkE or is it MileHigh or sarkeizen?
Take your pick Trollalot.

[Pirate88179]

It all depends who asks.
Is it you MarkE or is it MileHigh or sarkeizen?
Take your pick Trollalot.

What the hell does this even mean?  I suppose you are not going to respond to my post then?

Bill

[sarkeizen]

Grow a spine Trollalot.
I feel sorry for your children and grandchildren.

So you think it's ok to only post weak evidence?
So you think it's ok to post evidence which is mostly weak without pointing out the parts that are strong?
So you think it's ok to not point out the weak points of other peoples evidence?

You think none of these things are deceptive?  Let me know when you grow a spine that can answer a tough question or two.

[sarkeizen]

Vaccine Opponents Do Have Scientific Backing

Is this strong Evidence SM?  Just say so.  Otherwise you're saying it's weak evidence and should be ignored right?

[MarkE]

It all depends who asks.
Is it you MarkE or is it MileHigh or sarkeizen?
Take your pick Trollalot.

Once again, here are the questions posed to you that if you have the commensurate collateral, the answers would allow you to strongly argue in favor of your assertions, instead of evading them by disingenuosly claiming that the questions are "government propaganda".  You are not doing a very good job of demonstrating how you "hate dishonesty".

What criteria do you use to determine whether something is dangerous or not?  According to that criteria:  Which vaccines are dangerous?  What objective evidence have you used to determine that each of the vaccines you declare are dangerous meet your criteria?